SedonaEye.com columnist, Eddie S. Maddock keeps an Eye Q on the Sedona City Council
Sedona AZ (April 3, 2013) – SedonaEye.com columnist, Eddie S. Maddock, spent five hours reviewing City of Sedona Council meeting recordings to bring you this in-depth look at its elected city officials quotes, quips and quirks in her Eye on Sedona column:
Let’s label this PART ONE: Special Pre-City Council Meeting.
Surprisingly, to at least one City Council member, Mayor Rob Adams, during the Special Pre-City Council Meeting held for the purpose of Council’s review of the Regular Council Meeting agenda, both conducted on March 26, 2013, at 3:00 PM and 4:30 PM respectively, announced without including amounts of the proposed tax increase, that, at the request of the Chamber of Commerce he had pulled from the regular agenda the following:
“9F: Approval to publish in City’s website a notice of the City’s intention to consider at its regular meeting on 5/28 a possible increase to the City bed tax and TPT tax.”
“Could you explain why?” asked Councilor Barbara Litrell.
The mayor responded that Chamber of Commerce didn’t feel they were prepared and had concerns about a possible misrepresentation of intent; and that Council, business community, and Chamber needed better assessment of the direction they were going to take. Also the public process needed clarification in order for all to be on the same page.
Lacking representation from the Sedona Main Street Program, Council, having no questions regarding that agenda item, moved onto the next: Adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Barbara Litrell and Councilor Dan McIlroy asked for clarification on intent of the plan. Likewise, Vice Mayor Mark DiNunzio questioned intentions and expectations of the plan. To facilitate approval of Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Rachel Murdoch, Recreation & Aquatic Supervisor,explained the essential purpose of the plan was to offer “general direction.”
Councilor Mike Ward had concerns with lack of funding mechanism but was cautioned by Mayor Adams to “Stay away from comments.”
Moving on with the agenda, Sedona Police Chief Raymond O. Cota addressed questions from Litrell, Williamson, DiNunzio, McIlroy, and Ward relating to intent to purchase three Ford Police Interceptors, which authorization was subsequently unanimously approved at the Regular City Council Meeting.
Council discussion then moved quickly forward to the hot issue of the moment, potential properties to purchase for public uses. Nick Gioello, Assistant to the City Manager, fielded the questions.
Mayor Adams wanted to know why Mr. Gioello hadn’t contacted private property owners along Oak Creek, those located on the east side off of Schnebly Hill Road, to find out if they would sell their properties. Adams was also quick to berate him for not having done so.
Gioello explained that it was his understanding the meeting scheduled at this time was simply to decide whether or not the City would proceed with land acquisition, and therefore he felt it was premature. Also, the properties City had researched, with the exception of Lomacosi Resort, were presently on the market.
Barbara Litrell asked for the City to get in touch with architect Max Licher of the Design Group, reason being that at Community Plan update meetings Licher had prepared and offered a design (rendering) encompassing the Schnebly Hill area and, who has, in fact, made contact with some of the property owners.
Mike Ward attempted to state questions he intended to ask at the Regular Meeting but was reprimanded by Mayor Adams that the purpose of the Pre-Meeting was to have questions answered at that time and not at the Regular Council Meeting.
And so, Ward’s three questions were: (1) Why now are we talking about this . . . before the budget? (2) Over and above the 1.6 to 1.7 million dollars presently available from Parks & Recreation impact fees for the purpose of property acquisition, what will be the source(s) of additional funding? and (3) When will identification be offered for future funding for improvements and maintenance of land acquisitions?
(At some point, City Attorney Mike Goimarac specified that the impact funds needn’t be spent until the year 2020.)
Mayor Adams commented that at the Council Retreat acquiring land for the purpose of parks or other “critical” uses such as parking was established as a Council priority largely due to the depressed real estate market and the opportunity to pick up land reasonably priced in order to satisfy a “community priority.”
Mike Ward’s questions were addressed by City Manager Tim Ernster insofar that additional funding for land acquisition would have to be transferred from City Reserve Operating and/or General Accounts which, at this time, any such transfers are recommended for more obvious critical needs such as drainage, flood control, and road maintenance.
The meeting at this point and encompassing the remainder of its time, approximately thirty-seven minutes, was devoted to questions directed towards the property on Brewer Road.
Here we go. Let’s label this PART TWO: REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
As the Regular City Council Meeting promptly convened at 4:30 PM, roll call once again reflected the absence of Council Member John Martinez.
The initial part of the agenda moved swiftly to No. 9, Regular Business, the first item being presentation and discussion from Sedona Main Street Program to update City Council on services they provide and its activities in the last year.
An annual report is required per the SMSP Service Contract with the City and includes a general overview of past year’s events and affiliations with committees, groups, and the City itself. The presentation was provided by SMSP Executive Director, Holly Epright.
Included was a recap of SMSP’s Reinvestment Figures Report 2012, which reflects private dollars invested in capital improvements, renovations or development of businesses and acquisitions of commercial property, the net number of new businesses in the District, and the net number of new jobs created within a fiscal year, as follows:
Building-Business Projects, 71 $5,869,255
Property Acquisitions, 3 2,050,000
Public Improvements 143,344
Net New Businesses (negative 6)
Net New Jobs 44
According to Epright this represents a reinvestment of $116.00 for every $1.00.
This information is available on the SMSP web-letter, Vol. 153 – Issue 3, 2012. Newsletter funding is provided by City of Sedona.
Also on board was Becky O’Banion, business owner and member of the Main Street Board of Directors, who gave a brief overview of Sedona Main Street Program future plans: The theme of its work plan is “who, what, when and why” and SMSP hopes to continue participating in traffic, circulation and parking solutions. Expanding cooperation among stakeholders including the City, volunteer and training, social networking and fulfilling State requirements are important.
Brief comments and questions were made by Council members Mike Ward, Barbara Litrell, Dan McIlroy, and Jessica Williamson, prompting two short answers from SMSP O’Banion: (1) No, they are not participants in the tax increase requested by the Chamber of Commerce and the Sedona Lodging Council; and (2) Yes, she herself serves on the Uptown Advisory Committee now pursuing the recently approved new plan to address traffic, parking, and circulation issues.
Conclusion of presentation: O’Banion would love separating the dichotomy between residents and business. Epright hopes for increased partnership with the City.
The next agenda item was discussion-possible action on adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, presented by Rachel Murdoch. Among questions and concerns from City Council members:
Litrell: If approved, what next?
Response: That which won’t cost a lot of money such as shade structures, restroom maintenance (only new one planned is for wet lands), $100,000 for parks and trailhead procurement, staff requests, 3.3 partnership plan, 3.8 pricing policy, and maintenance standards.
DiNunzio: Any plans for digital on-line progress report?
Response: Not at the moment, but by unanimous council recommendation it will be implemented.
The cost of the study was $100,000.
Mike Ward asked if the result . . . scope, quality, and practicality . . . met with expectations? Ward still had concerns about the disconnection with funding in order to fulfill the wish list, “The plan lacks awareness of money needed to uphold community expectations.”
Response: Tim Ernster reiterated what was said at pre-meeting . . . that additional funding would have to come from reserves which will deprive infrastructure demands.
McIlroy: “Any plans for stocking fish at wet lands?”
Response: Yes
“Was it included in the report how many residents activated use of the parks”.
Response: No
Mayor Adams suggested ways of funding as raising taxes, bonding, and special districts.
City Manager Ernster suggested grants, partnerships, and sponsors as other methods of funding amenities in the plan.
Litrell suggested that as economy accelerates more construction will occur to provide increased Development Impact Fees.
A motion was approved to accept the Parks and Recreation Master Plan with only Mike Ward declining“due to citizens’ expectations without identified source of funding.”
Next on the agenda: “Discussion-possible direction regarding presentation of potential properties to purchase for public uses in three categories: creekside access, public-pedestrian park, and public parking.”
City Manager Ernster opened the discussion by explaining, again, that over and above the $1.6 million Development Impact Fees further funding was unavailable without tapping into reserve funding which is sorely needed for infrastructure requirements.
Ernster’s assistant, Nick Gioello, commenced to review the properties the staff had investigated to present to City Council:
- · Preserve at Oak Creek (former Hawkeye Trailer Park): 21.5 acres; 13 parcels. Potential asking price $8-8.5 million. 7 acres not accessible; 8 acres in floodway or floodplain. Steep grades on west side of the highway.
- · Oak Creek Mobile Lodge: 4.07 acres; 2 parcels. Listed, $3.3 million. (City Council indicated lack of interest in the property at this time.)
- · Lomacosi Resort: 8.8 acres; 8 parcels. Not presently listed for sale.
- · ADOT property at “Y”: 0.134 acres. Price unknown. To be considered for pedestrian park and link to uptown area. Rachel Murdoch’s suggested use was for promotion of events, advertising, banners, and signs, as she compared the location with the Chamber of Commerce in Cottonwood. “It would be huge,” she said, referring to accommodating and pleasing the business community.
- · Property in front of City Hall (SR89A & Roadrunner): 0.71 acre; Listed: $369,000.
- · 250 Brewer Road (Old Forest Service Property): 3.35 acres; Listed: $1,050,000 based on being rezoned for high density residential.
Concerns with the Preserve at Oak Creek included the cost and potential development constraints.
Lomacosi Resort, although offering an attractive setting for a creekside park, prompted a concern from Dan McIlroy insofar as liability risks to the City.
Ms. Murdoch was again called upon and asked about public consensus. Her response: “Since I’ve been here people want a park . . . open and free.”
This led to Mike Ward questioning the potential for an “attractive nuisance” since Slide Rock presently charges a $20 or $40 entrance fee. Ward fears that a “free” facility in Sedona will primarily attract day-trippers and overflow from Oak Creek Canyon.
This, of course, could apply to any location with access to the Creek.
Litrell expressed concern that the Lomacosi property was too remote to conveniently accommodate local residents.
Because the property on SR89A, actually at the rear of City Hall (the main entrance and actual front of the complex is located on Cardinal Lane) must remain earmarked for public use such as a park, and two pocket-parks already exist in the vicinity, this was not a high priority location to pursue at this time.
The Brewer Road property, which was discussed quite extensively during the Special Pre-City Council Meeting, clearly turned out to be the number one choice, leading to direction from City Council to City Staff to pursue prospects of obtaining another appraisal with the possibility of considering future condemnation proceedings.
Mayor Adams expressed some confidence in the possibility of a future public-private agreement with Diamond Resort, present owners of Los Abrigados, which hopefully would include access to Oak Creek. The other property, the ADOT location, found an agreement, among those present, to pursue negotiating a price, appraisal, or other means by which the City might procure that site.
The property behind Hozho brought before the City Council by request of Mayor Rob Adams for consideration to be obtained for public parking was rejected. Dan McIlroy questioned the redundancy to suggest purchasing parking areas because of the recent decision ascertained from the results of the Uptown Advisory Committee . . . which was to implement their recommendations made at the Special City Council Meeting on March 7. (Mayor Adams did not attend that meeting.)
And so, there you have it, two meetings, five hours, and yet another City Council making decisions which will change the face of Sedona now and long after we are all gone.
The question remains: Will they ignore Tim Ernster’s repetitive reminders relating to the City’s financial situation or, based on the premise of the depressed real estate market, continue on the fast track to purchase property, transfer needed funding now earmarked for critical infrastructure improvements, and turn those who will suffer most into Sacrificial Lambs for what appears to be an ego-driven cause?
Really, is it anything else but ego-driven considering the current Parks and Recreation development impact fees needn’t be dispersed until 2020?
Over and above a few specific quotes, are we witnessing quips, quirks, and maybe even musings, amusements, and aggravations?
You decide.
For the best Sedona Arizona News and Views? Subscribe to www.SedonaEye.com today.
nice work keep it up
Just more proof that people can’t handle power.
And I still find it hilarious that these knuckleheads have taken one long meeting, split it into two meetings, and then think they are saving time. No wonder the City is running out money; the poor things can’t do basic math.
Once again, the City of Sedona proves it should be disbanded. When will the voters wake up.
WE can fix this mistake, just fire them all.
What? A sign fest at corner of the “y” roundabouts? have they gone mad? does anyone recall the sea of clutter created by signs on the hill before Fort Hyatt came to be? at least then there was a stop light. What will happen when traffic is blocked while drivers stop to read event signs at that corner? Dodging traffic from Brewer Rd., Burger King and the gas station is bad enough. OMG, and I thought the overhead banners uptown were bad. How much worse can it get? it will be huge all right. a huge pile-up!
We already have a couple of nice parks, like Sunset and Kiwanis Park is VOC. OK so they are not at the creek, but then there’s Red Rock Crossing that is totally at the creek and available for picnics, walks, weddings and such.
Seems like the City’s priorities are “out of whack” and they will get a “big whack” when monsoons hit and the flooding begins.
A “reserve fund” is supposed to be there for emergencies not just to dip into to satisfy someone’s EGO.
Puleeze, $100,000 for a study that was unable to determine how many local residents use the parks we already have? How can feasible recommendations possibly be suggested without having that knowledge? It appears that this is as rigged as some polls that conveniently come up with recommendations suitable to those conducting the poll. Wake up “sacrificial lambs” and prepare for class action legal solutions if, by chance, this nonsense continues to leave you all on the back burner with water up to your arses
Well, fellow citizens – are we having fun yet? Eddie – you did a terrific job and provided us with factual representations -good job! Agree with Mike – Keep Up the Great Reporting!
I, too, endured watching the two council 3/26/13 meetings and was, quite frankly, extremely very unimpressed with the mayor and his chastising of his equals, as well as the combined length of time both meetings took. So much for cutting meeting times down. Think the only benefit is they get a free meal between meetings.
Lest we forget, the only difference between the mayor and his fellow council members is that he, the mayor, sets agendas, signs city documents and runs the council meetings. Otherwise he has no earthly, or elected, powers greater than the other duly elected 6 sitting on Council……..actually the other 6 Council Members are much more polite than the guy who chews gum as he officiates a Council meeting and tells them not to talk or reprimands them that any given issue was already discussed at the “Special Meeting”
This concept of special meetings has bothered me for some time – so I went to check it out on a state definition level and what do ya know? They are supposed to be held for “Special” reasons vs what our mayor is doing….holding “regularly” scheduled “special meetings” when there is nothing “special” about them and instead they are only work sessions. So I’m wondering if each of his “Special meetings” are actually legal? Or are they a power driven scam? Hum.
Maybe someone can help me understand the concept of all the very regularly scheduled “Special Meetings – I just don’t get it. Rob wants to shorten the Public Meeting – yet they never do….huh? Think it’s called a “Work Session”. Come on Rob …. How dumb do you think we all are?
Found it really unbelievable that I, just a citizen, watching two same day meetings, kept hearing the City Manager and other Council members state and acknowledge we don’t have the money to spend on any park purchase beyond the $1.5m to $1.6m in the Parks Impact Fee Account . In other words – ya can buy land but ya have no money to maintain or improve it.
Eddie is 100% correct that the City Manager kept advising the mayor and Council that the only other source of funds was General Funds or Reserves….I mean how hard is that to understand?
Guess it was too much for our mayor because late in the meeting he almost went ballistic when those words finally permeated his brain! He went so far as to raise his voice and ask the City Manager why Staff hadn’t told them this before. OMG! Tim Earnster was a true gentleman….someone rob could and should learn from.
The saddest part about what is happening with our Council is that 1) the Park Impact Fees don’t need to be spent until 2020 – so there is no hurry there, 2) Rob Adams actually said “You don’t understand how much money you need until you know the price.” Huh? …. Does this mean I sell my first born in order to raise funds for collateral that makes my walk on the wild side of spending that is simply a dream and a damnation? Who would ever sell their first born? I’m thinking it would be rob.
Shouldn’t it be: you don’t know what you can afford to spend until you know what your budget is -? 3 )Rob withholds information from his fellow Council Members, and last but certainly not least: 4) I watched a guy at the council meeting – believe his name is Steve – who sits on the budget committee (who owns a hotel next to Tlaquepaque) and who was advising the council during the item of purchasing park lands in his direct neighborhood – he only wanted what was good for his neighborhood! I’d, silly me, call that a conflict of interest.
So, are we having Fun Yet? No Way!
Mike Ward is doing an excellent job and is the lone hope of sanity. How can we continue to waste staff time delving into buying park lands we can’t afford to own, let alone maintain? And, by the way? In the RRN, publish date as 3/29/13 (which actually hit my driveway on 3/28/13 – just a day and a half after the council meeting) there was a public Advertisement for Bids by the City for “Improvements to the recreational area at the Sedona Wetlands Preserve….gravel parking lot w/2 ADA parking stalls, a restroom, 3 remadas, 8″ wide paved pathway to access existing trail system.” kinda reminds me of that concept that the body isn’t even in the ground before the kids start spending the money.
There is much more I would like to say – yet I just found my voice, and feel refreshed, and probably made my first get out of the gate way too long… And feel others in our little town need to wake up and start caring about Sedona and speak out!
Speak out just like all of us did with our votes on the crazy concept the council put forth that we Needed to Own89A. They were wrong then as we outvoted them overwhelmingly. They are wrong now. If we need another referendum or initiative……..well lets just gear up!
Sharlett
This is to acknowledge my appreciation to those who have taken time to make direct contact with me relating to this article. Your support is heartwarming although I would be remiss if I didn’t remind all of you that without C. Bentley-Hill, Publisher of “Sedona Eye,” my contribution would not have been made public.
It remains a privilege to be accepted by what, in my opinion, is hands down the most fair-minded and unbiased publication Sedona has to offer. Thank you for this most rare and unexpected opportunity.
Sincerely,
Eddie Maddock
To that idiot, the one who said (Ms. Murdoch was again called upon and asked about public consensus. Her response: “Since I’ve been here people want a park . . . open and free.”)? How much do we pay her to work at city hall?
Public consensus? Here’s some public consensus for you from a businessman’s perspective.
Look around you. What do you see? Open and free desert and forest land. Natural. Beautiful. Except where city and county have enhanced it with lights, thousands of highway metal signs stupidly placed every five feet on 89A & 179, narrowed frontages no longer accomodating free city parking, proposed zoning changes that may eventually see a Taco Bell after Lisa Dahl goes out of business in the future, and road to the airport falling down the hill. Do something about this impact with our dollars. Do something to fix our infrastructure. We’ve got nowhere to spread out. We have no promise that our economy is going to provide more for this town and probably less. Unemployment rose again if you read the last release. The president is going to tax social security in his announcement today.
City spends 100 GRAND to come up with what city hall workers daily jobs scope and salary covers? I want to know who cashed that check and Miss Murdock let me see that report you paid for published here in full. I want to SEE it. I might want to FEEL it. Been a long time since I held a 100 GRAND in my hand. I want to read every nickels worth. I paid for it.
Title should read City hall burns money faster than it can tax it. Don’t get me started on Mayor wanting to tax us more $$$$.
Dan, Sedona
Try pleasing folks in this town no way no how no time
As this saga unfolds it’s becoming increasingly (and alarmingly I might add) a concern that our local government is functioning under the guise of transparency. Checking for myself to confirm that B. Litrell’s reference to that architect Max Licher had, in fact, already drawn a rendering of future plans on private Oak Creek properties I found out that it is true. How intrusive, invasive, and obnoxious for any member of our local government to condone such activities. Were they not elected to represent all of us? How many other neighborhoods are they snooping about to draw restructured plans for the future of our subdivisions? This absolutely should be unacceptable. What do we do about it?
better get a judge’s ruling on legal or not about these meetings even I don’t have one personal gripe with those fellows on council I do have gripes with them yaking and blithering and spending money like fools + Ward ought to run for mayor he seems the most honest and informed
What will this City Council have accomplished if they rile up VOTING residents to the point there is yet again more ballot issues aka Referendum/Initiative.
It appears the legacy they are establishing is to set the record for the P word: Provoking residents to the limit.
If they continue their march to increasing sales taxes or any other form of citizen financial abuse, they should vacate their seats and admit to having failed the MAJORITY of the people who elected them.
Sedona City Council Meetings, Tuesday April 9, 2013
“Special Meeting” 3:00 p.m. Council Chambers, Sedona City Hall*
“Regular Meeting” 4:30 p.m. Council Chambers, Sedona City Hall**
Attend in person or view on Local Access TV Channel 4.
* . . . ** = Individual 10 x 5.5 inch ads published prior to these meetings. At what cost? Remember, these ads appear before all council meetings. (every two weeks or more frequently depending on additional “special meetings” which seem to become more and more prevalent as city council terms encounter time constraints)
The following information was sent to me via e-mail. It’s with permission from the sender that I post the communication herewith:
” ALERT ITEM 9e ABSENT FROM VIDEO RECORDING POSTED ON CITY SITE OF TONIGHT’S CITY COUNCIL MEETING 04/09/13
ITEM 9I
Here’s the other part of tonight’s meeting . . . discussion about the water injection system and AMA’s (Activity Management Areas). There was talk about the city “receiving credits.” Barbara voted against the motion that passed. This is right out of Agenda 21. Also Mike Ward talked about the Forest Service taking back the forest by restricting mountain biking.
00:56 The Mayor asks other councilors if anyone has approached them about the Mayor’s HOA meeting being about “Barbara’s Park.” He’s brought the subject up several times this evening.
ITEM 9e AB 1532 Discussion/possible action regarding approval of award of a construction contract for the WWTP Class A+ Reclaimed Water Injection Test Well with Yellow Jacket Drilling Services in the amount of $475,500.
Totally missing from the video record on the url below. Discussion was about AMA’s and the water injection system. Dan McIlroy asked what the initials represented, but I don’t think he comprehended that it was part of Agenda 21.”
http://sedonaaz.swagit.com/play/04092013-710
Regarding the Sedona City Council meeting 04/09/13, we believe it’s a nice thing for quarterly updates from Fire Chief Kris Kazian at the City Council meetings. Consideration to do the same with the SOCSD Superintendent Dave Lykins might also be a good idea.
However, a clear distinction should be made that both the School and Fire Districts are separated from incorporated Sedona since they encompass larger areas than the confinements of Sedona City Limits.
Also, the taxes levied from the counties we live, Coconino or Yavapai, are on behalf of the School and Fire Districts and not Sedona City functions. We take pride and are grateful that we do not reside within Sedona City Limits and do not wish to be identified with that entity through association of our School and Fire Districts.
Thank you.
Don’t know if its proper to write about something from another paper but the results of a poll were that 55.8% responses said to forget the Barbara Park and deny that other Backyard place for entertainment over by the Bashas. (sure the poll was unofficial but so was the cockeyed one used by the city planners and their high priced survey) also one in the paper was about what city should do with outdoor stages and not just parks in general.
Now my question is then the city spends $100,000 for a study to get the result they want, that sooo many people want more parks? who says money can’t by everything?
When grandma and myself take the grand kids to the Sunset park or that one out in the village, why, it’s never just standing room only. That means that at least most days of the week theres plenty room for all. In fact, many folks are tourists so its hard to say how many locals use the parks we have now so that part of the “study” was at least honest but the poll was not. I repeat, who says money can’t by everything?
It’s been a while since throwing in my two cents worth but am unable to continue sitting in silence. Just picked up on comment from Sedona Grandpa and, with all due respect, have you heard there’s “no free lunch?”
Agreeing that money has the ability to buy anything, there’s always an unknown price tag as in “the piper must be paid.” And in the case of what’s going on with this city council (Mike Ward obviously being the only one to dare challenge the mayor) the burden will, eventually, fall on Sedona residents.
My hunch is that if someone with real smarts suggested a city code that from here on out would establish a policy that “nothing in Sedona will heretofore be named after a politician” it might very well change priorities for certain council members, past, present, and future.
Also how about revisiting the thought that “the best things in life are free” including what’s left of our beautiful scenic Sedona red rocks, many hiking trails and areas on Oak Creek, and even night skies in spite of the hype from those who claimed the only way to save our starlit skies would be to own a State Hiway.
It’s apparent that at least one council member, Barbara Latrell, continues to pursue that concept (to own west 89A probably so she can pass approval for more signs in Sedona) because of her questioning at the council meeting last Tuesday (4/9) of an unfortunate ADOT representative who drew the unlucky straw to present an update on ADOT’s current financial constraints.
“Everything has a price” even though it might be passed on to those who didn’t make the purchase. Example: government at all levels.
In Sedona not only are those at risk of losing property due to need of drainage overhaul, everyone, especially residents, will be destined to suffer financial consequences and responsibility for decisions now on the table by those who will be long gone after the repercussions of their nasty deeds are fully recognized.
All of us except what appears to be the fair haired elitists are in the position of being “sacrificial lambs.”
Hip hip hurray for renaming Barbara’s Park to Rob Adams. That might be the only recourse to stop the nonsense of chasing rainbows to purchase unaffordable properties for creek walks, creek parks, and blah, blah, blah at the sewer plant and most CIP projects at the expense of Sedona residents. Oops, overlooked the idiotic proposal for “partnerships” which, translated means “We’ll co-invest now but eventually expect the city to take over in toto.” (Example: Teen Center; Future example: proposed Art Museum.)
Hip hip hurray #2. I say change Barb’s park to “Adams Folly” since in a recent report Sedona is jammed with cars, people, etc. these days, many who are staying in hotels/motels/timeshares. But according to uptown retailers not too many are actually spending money shopping.
Therefore since the chamber of commerce is so intent to bring in even more tourists, and city council is willing give them more tax money to advertise or hire more high priced employees (at the chamber) and even if they stay over night or whatever they think makes them “destination tourists” and even tho they aren’t spending money in souvenir shops, they do enjoy the free offerings.
So by all means lets put the city in debt for many more parks on Oak Creek and “Adams Follies” out at the sewer plant so our visitors can buy their subs and sodas at a local market and have free rides and picnics with the swans and duckies.
If Sedona residents sit silently while this dog & pony show continues with their ridiculous acts, don’t complain when bonds or special taxing districts are imposed with or without your consent.Speak up now or forever remain silent for that’s all your voice will amount to later on. Your silence at this time could serve to have reflected volumes later on if you suddenly find the changes in “small town” Sedona not to your liking.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SEDONA CITY HALL
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2013, 3:00 PM
Primary purpose:
DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE ACTION RELATING TO FUTURE PLANS FOR THE POSSE GROUNDS PAVILION AND POTENTIAL CHANGES TO THE CURRENT POSSE GROUNDS PARK OPERATIONS PLAN.
Cable Channel 4 for live coverage.
Is there any particular reason why your elected council members in Sedona are called Councilors? Everyplace else it seems they are referred to as Councilman, Councilwoman, or in general Council Members? This is easy to check out by reading articles in the Arizona Republic, especially about the Phoenix & Scottsdale City Councils. It seems sort of snooty to me and maybe one of the reasons Sedona has such a snobbish reputation?
Oh Marsha, if ever there was a double-dare-you opportunity this has to be it! But of course this article is about using words. So, Heaven help me, here goes.
Maybe members of the Sedona City Council (“Councilors” versus “Council Members”) are “affluent” and therefore do not believe their “effluent” is “odorous.”
Support for this theory may lie within their decision to approve via the Consent Agenda Section of the Council Meeting May 14, 2013, specified as “m. AB 1585 award of construction contract for the Sedona Wetlands Preserve Recreation Component Project with McDonald Bros. Construction, Inc. in the amount of $161,200.45.”
Translated: Facilities for picnics and other recreational activities. So clearly they do not anticipate any “odoriferous” interference.
Because you are in Prescott you may not be aware the Sedona Wetlands Preserve Recreation Component is actually an upgraded title for the Sedona Wastewater Treatment Plant (to put it nicely.)
To be fair, this current City Council cannot take credit, or be blamed as the case may be, for the term “Councilors” as they inherited the label. Initially members of the Sedona City Council were, in fact, referred to as Council Members, Councilmen/man; Councilwomen/woman. Maybe someone out yonder in cyberspace might be able to pinpoint how and why the changes were made to reflect what, indeed, some consider to be a very unnecessary affectation in a place with the original intent of maintaining a small town atmosphere.