Home » City Council, Community » New Slant on Sedona Beyond 2012

New Slant on Sedona Beyond 2012

SedonaEye.com columnist, Eddie S. Maddock on City issue

SedonaEye.com columnist, Eddie S. Maddock on City issue

Sedona AZ (February 5, 2013) SedonaEye.com columnist, Eddie S. Maddock, tackles a recent City of Sedona information release in an article entitled, New Slant on Sedona Beyond 2012, as follows:

A comment dated February 1, 2013, written and released to the media by City of Sedona staff for Assistant City Manager Karen Daines under the featured Sedona Eye column, Sedona 2012 Fourth Quarter Real Estate Update (Sean Baguley, January 27, 2013), merits special notation.

The nature of Ms. Daines’ comments relates directly to “City of Sedona Proposed 10-Year Capital Improvement Program” including specific dates and times, noted as “Community Input Period.”

The following web site will take you directly to valuable information:

https://www.sedonaaz.gov/Sedonacms/modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=18435

This particular web site was not included in Ms. Daines’ presentation, but after researching the City web site, it directly relates to the subject at hand: the “Proposed 10-Year Capital Improvement Program.” Also, it further upholds certain issues addressed in “Sedona Beyond 2012” featured in Sedona Eye shortly after the first of the year 2013.

Granted, it is a long document. However well-written and comprehensive, the document offers answers to a multitude of problematic questions, in addition to, perhaps, raising others.

For example, as outlined in Sedona City Councilman Mike Ward’s column, Sedona Storm Water Plan Incomplete After Spending Millions (SedonaEye.com, January 22, 2013), and recognizing “Drainage issues encompass pages 36 to 52 (inclusive) of the numbered pages (towards the conclusion of the website document), it restructures a question.

With so many citizen’s properties remaining in jeopardy, in many cases due to bad judgment and direct negligence by improper city engineering approval of new development, how can the city justify moving forward with less critical expenditures? For example, in 2012 a random 2,500 surveys were selectively mailed to residents of Sedona. A reported 563 responses were returned and included creek walks and a park on Oak Creek as being identified as high priority, both of which are included in the CIP.

Realistically, how is it that an unofficial poll, reflecting such an obvious slim representation of Sedona’s population of 10,000 can be given credence in favor of prudent attention to serious drainage issues throughout our city?

Based on Sedona’s population (10,000) would that not be around 5% who so allegedly and unanimously cannot live without a projected four million dollar creek walk (not including acknowledgement of future funding necessary to rebuild due to potential flooding!)?

Honest. That’s what it says! That amounts to volumes insofar as the City of Sedona acknowledging Oak Creek is, in fact, an ongoing flood risk!

Wonder how that sits with the folks who own properties within the sixteen pages of unresolved drainage problems?

Then there’s the little matter of nine pages of unresolved wastewater issues (pages 53-62 inclusive) unrelated to proposed plans for a future cultural park/convention center/ball parks ad infinitum.

What happened to health, safety, and welfare before considering the ongoing vocal demands of a slim few?

Do our local leaders not understand? Isn’t it obvious that the silent majority (shame on that, too) prefers to enjoy their privacy, live in their homes, hike, entertain, do whatever it is that pleases them without being told by “big brother” how to live their lives?

For those who insist, like spoiled brats whining to their parents in order to have their way, maybe it’s time to firm up the process. Simple solution: Special Improvement Districts. Why? “Cause this might be the start of something big.” (Isn’t that a refrain from a George Strait song?)

Case rested.

The document itself is legible to the point where specific expenditures are cataloged. At that time one might consider having a magnifying glass handy which would be well worth the inconvenience.

Do yourselves a favor (depending on how you look at it) and, when nothing else is on TV except perpetual bad news, read this…and really, really pay attention.

For your convenience, here it is again:

https://www.sedonaaz.gov/Sedonacms/modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=18435

 

For the best Sedona Arizona News and Views? Subscribe to www.SedonaEye.com today.

For the best Sedona Arizona News and Views? Subscribe to www.SedonaEye.com today.

 

18 Comments

  1. New Slant on Sedona Beyond 2012 – Sedona Eye ‹ Sedona Sacred Light says:

    […] Sedona Eye […]

  2. No, sez me, this cannot be true. Elected officials wouldn’t consider frivolous projects more important than potential flooding of 16 pages of defined areas and relevant private/business properties. Well, 10 pages under the heading of Parks & Rec clearly let me know how wrong I am in my thinking. And no, I didn’t require a magnifying glass to get the message.

    Page 9: Creekside Access/Park recommends funding to complete final design & construction of Creekwalk from Tlaquepaque to just south of Cedars Resort or design a Creekwalk, or Creekside Park, on a different portion of Oak Creek in the uptown area.

    QUOTE: “78% of survey respondents support this.”

    Does that mean 78% of the 563 returned surveys out of the 2,500 mailed to selected residents, or does it pertain to other surveys probably completed by the same handful of people who have reached such elevated status at City Hall that none of the remaining 9,437 residents of Sedona matter?

    TRANSLATED: City intends to impose financial stress on the general population, forever and ever, literally, as indicated by another DIRECT QUOTE: “If this project is built, there will be future maintenance costs and costs to rebuild when creek floods.” What’s the point in even estimating quotes at this stage of the game because clearly the sky is the limit and cost isn’t now and will remain no object.

    That being the obvious case, I agree that Special Improvement Districts should move forward, in this case allowing the 78% of the magnificent 563 voices, obviously the only ones that count, the opportunity to also finance their custom imposed desires. That should at least free up to some degree desperately needed money to assist in making and keeping our properties safe as our City Council was elected to do in the first place. Why has that become so difficult?

    Stop breaking the backs of those unfortunate enough to have been extended service to the sewer system by charging outrageous connection and monthly user fees, all in order to acquiesce to whims of less than 500 elite who are obviously pulling the puppet strings of the mannequins at City Hall. And no, drop the idea of city property tax on the 9,437 voices who perhaps have remained silent for far too long.

    Adding insult to injury and equally as important as the shameful proposed capital improvement projections is the lack of respect and complete avoidance of the entire City Council as displayed by ignoring the concerns of those of us who have grave concerns about the installation of Smart Meters, and all with very good reason even though “they” just don’t seem to get it.

    ALL OF THE ABOVE SHOULD SERVE AS FABULOUS SEDONA PROMOTION FODDER FOR THE ONGOING, NEVER ENDING EXCESSIVE CITY FUNDING FOR THE LOCAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

  3. John Nolan says:

    As a point of interest; does anyone here realize that “Special Districts” are SELF TAXING. So as Doubting Thomas above jokes about: “That being the obvious case, I agree that Special Improvement Districts should move forward”. THIS AMOUNTS TO A PROPERTY TAX. Once that door is opened, we can have special districts for everything.

  4. N. Baer says:

    Time for new leaders with new visions and tight purse strings.

  5. Excuse me, Mr. Nolan, but my comment was not meant to be a joke. Special Improvement Districts as I’m aware would be approved by a specific segment of the population with a common goal. For example, more parking is obviously needed uptown. Why, then, would it not be appropriate for the businesses to group together, take a vote, and provide approval to accept responsibility for necessary taxes to make it happen. Property taxes, yes, but selective instead of attempting to sock it to the population in general.

    Especially to those who insist on this Creekwalk and Creek Park. Do “they” want it badly enough to step up to the bat and say “Sure, we’ll gladly pay for it now and make the commitment for future maintenance” without expecting to financially burden the entire community with something they feel is neither wanted nor needed?

    Shouldn’t proper infrastructure be a no-brainer insofar as maintaining diligent provisions for health, safety, and welfare to those who live here as well as visitors? Isn’t that where our prevailing revenue should be spent? Once accomplished then and only then, providing there’s money left over, would be the time to consider all of the frivolous items presently on the table, which obviously have been shifted to top priorities.

    What’s wrong with this scenario? Or if, by chance, I’m a lone voice amidst the 9,437 others not counted in the overwhelming 78% of 563 surveys returned to City Hall (no, I did not receive the survey nor did I receive the alleged tabloid about the Community Plan) then of course I humbly apologize and reluctantly accept the skewed will of the people who have managed to take control of our destiny.

    BTW, I overlooked mentioning that on Page 15 you will find “Feasibility study for a multi-purpose facility at the wastewater treatment plant.”

  6. John Nolan says:

    Doubting, I’m from an area in Maine where they started taxing districts for any additional services, about 30 years ago. We had sewer District (extra tax), Sanitation District which actually did lower the service fee (extra tax), Street Lighting (extra tax). By doing this allowed government to say that THEIR tax was hardly ever raised but, the special districts would almost increased. My point is that in Sedona where we don’t pay that portion of tax, once you open the door, you can expect nothing but more taxes as time goes on.

  7. E.S. Maddock says:

    Astute comment, N. Baer, and let us hope your suggested changes will occur prior to the time action has been officially put in motion to the extent which will prevent halting or reversing processing these outlandish agenda items to fruition.

    It was also pleasing to read a comment from another contributor which brought to light but didn’t elaborate on the almost belligerent attitude displayed by most of the City Council members relating to citizens’ objections to Smart Meters.

    I have followed you and others on your diligent efforts to “educate” our leaders but I’m afraid you are preaching to a choir devoid of the ability to deviate from their apparent mission to serve 78% of a selected 563 of Sedona’s total population of 10,000. Thank you and others for your dedication and determination to halt another disaster prior to blast off. Good luck.

    Sincerely,
    Eddie Maddock

  8. Brian says:

    Reading the amount of taxpayer funds spent on little or no return on investment is a shock to this taxpayer. I am saddened to find no prudent presentday leadership at the city level. It will be taken into account when this household votes again — we have been supporters in past elections of several that we thought better of at a former time in place. We are equally appalled that the council will be swayed by Lisa Dahl’s application to open a restaurant in a location highly unsuitable for that purpose. She is a nice person, a nice restauranteur but what does that have to do with overturning zoning conditions. I am seeing a lack of leadership top down at the council chambers and council members swayed by self interests. How disappointing for this former supporter.

  9. Jim, uptown says:

    OK, 16 pages of unresolved drainage issues most if not all are in w.sedona. wonder why those property owners aren’t angry? what gives? if they don’t care then why should city? what disgusts me most is the damn fifty thousand $$$ posts going in uptown for ugly banners. would never have happened if ADOT still own the hiway. no sympathy here for future flood victims in w.sedona, oak creek or anyplace if you all sit back and let this happen. and by all means don’t bother to vote. “home rule” is in action

  10. Paul says:

    Agree with Brian comment about zoning for restaurant. Unsuitable. Won’t ever be suitable. What influence is this person having over zoning and Council? The community plan is clear. Stop this nonsense in its tracks. Public opinion should not matter.

  11. Jim, uptown says:

    Ha, about that restaurant. aren’t most of these council members the ones who got elected because they wanted dark skies. and now how the heck do they intend to light up that area to make it safe? just be happy that ADOT doesn’t own the road so we don’t have banners strung across the hiway from city limits to city limits.

  12. N. Baer says:

    Correction about Council to Jim, uptown – Three of those counselors were defeated in the last City election and as you’ll notice W. Sedona has lights AND ADOT still owns the road which is why Uptown is allowed to have banners.

  13. Jim, uptown says:

    But there’s no ADOT lights where the restaurant wants to go. soon as the zone change happens then city will say it’s too dark & guess what? whoever is on that council will go to ADOT and want them to make it “safe”. that’s why we have lights in the first place. and the only reason the banners are going in uptown is because city owns that portion of the hiway so there’s no ADOT right of way to consider. if city owned the rest of the hiway as they tried to pull off then there would be banners and signs as I said, from city limits going north to city limits going to cottonwood.

  14. TeakMonkey says:

    Brian….Why is that location so unsuitable for a restaurant? it would be better than looking at a delapitated building that has been just sitting there for a very long time.

    what does it matter if it is rezoned. it is not like they are putting in another water treatment pond of lame ass meditation park. or god forbid another crystal shop. who cares….really!

    You people bitch and bitch about the lights, airport, water treatment plant….which by the way is outside city limits. do something to make it better and stop your complaining……you people voted these outsiders into office so deal with it. upward and onward I say. west sedona needs improvement , I agree…..and you guys talk about drainage problems.

    there is a gas station built right over where the old natural drainage used to flow. so get pissed at the oil company that put it there….geez man!!!

  15. Jean says:

    $55,400 was budgeted in FY 2012-13 for Banners for Uptown. How can this be?

    The Banners for Uptown matter hasn’t been before P & Z to modify the City’s Sign Code to provide for the 2 horrid street-spanning banners and the 4 humongous ugly poles yet. Has it been before the City Council for consideration, public comment and full review? I don’t think so.

    Is the public being left out of the loop? Are capital projects done deals nowadays I.e., before they go to the Council to rubber-stamp the amount to be spent?

  16. Andrew says:

    Teak Monkey asks why the location isn’t good for a restaurant. Well it seems that once the zone is changed from office and professional to general and commercial, if the restaurant deal should fall through or fail as a future business, then that property would be up for grabs to all sorts of commercial projects and, yes, even a crystal shop. At least so far it appears P & Z is taking that into consideration.

  17. When something no longer works as intended, it’s time to eliminate it. The city of Sedona should be disbanded. It was never that good of an idea and it has proven itself a tool for special interests and a money pit.

    We have the right to close it down.

  18. For those who are not aware, at the February 12th council meeting “they” approved an amendment to the city code (1.15 Penalties and Section 1.15.101.D Civil Citation Authority) : “to give the City Manager authority to designate civil citation authority for City Code violations and to increase the maximum possible civil penalty to $2,500 for Code violations and to pass the proposed ordinance as an EMERGENCY MEASURE.” (Agenda item “e.” under “9. Regular Business.”)

    Some city codes have been tagged as being “unenforceable” like the ADU’s and Short Term Vacation Rentals that it makes me wonder just what will the City Manager focus in on to collect more desperately needed money to fulfill the needs of the current maniacal spending spree?

Leave a Reply

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