Unfortunately it’s the really small minority who want and are succeeding to change things to “what they were back there” and those are the ones controlling our destiny. Listening to demands from the 40’ish generation for more things to do? What happened to the concept of being creative, entertaining at home, patronizing local night spots, or perhaps resuming a tightly knit family with appropriate activities? Since when was it the responsibility of government, at any level, to be all things to all people over and above mandatory infrastructure necessities that are obvious?

Take those folks and unite them with council members not willing to live within their charge, Sedona City Limits, and we have an ongoing demise of what the Chamber would like us to believe is the most beautiful place on earth. Sadly their egos and pocket books are being fed financially by those who continue to ignore State Statutes that should have prevented this gross destruction under the flag of incorporation.

Well Ms. Daines, you are mistaken.

Our primary residence is in City of Sedona and we do have a second property elsewhere where we visit occasionally throughout the year and may extend our stay during the heat of the summer for one or two months.

We do not disconnect our utility services which means although our usage may be reduced during our absence, we continue to pay a City Franchise Fee in addition to a City Utility Tax or State, County and City Sales Tax where applicable. And of course we are not forgiven our monthly sewer fee during our absence nor are we given a property tax break from the county where we reside.

In addition we arrange for someone to do house checks during our absence and pay for upkeep on our property, also contributing to the employment market.

To recklessly deem part-time residents as city albatrosses is grossly unfair, in particular in the context that it’s a reason to seek additional ways to acquire “new money.”

Of course if Ms. Daines herself lives outside Sedona City Limits she may not be aware of what is included on our in-city utility bills. As Asst. City Mgr. we suggest she checks it out prior to passing such hasty judgment.

Sedona AZ (March 11, 2014) – With approximately 37% of the City of Sedona registered 6495 voters casting ballots (2422), the Unofficial Preliminary Special Election Results for the March 11, 2014, election for the City of Sedona Arizona are below:

Proposition 427 Resolution #2013-25, a resolution of the Mayor and Council of the City of Sedona, Arizona, finding and determining certain facts and adopting the November 2013 New Sedona Community Plan of the City of Sedona Arizona received the following vote totals and percentages:

PROPOSITION 427 VOTE/BALLOT TOTAL PERCENT OF VOTES

NO 923 38.11%

Yavapai County has reported that they have at least 63 ballots that have not been processed. For more information, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 928-282-3113 or SIrvine@SedonaAZ.gov.

LOVE the addition of the Hart Store photo (on the list of official national historic places) since this council chose to cancel the Hummingbird House from the list of priorities. Just when you think you’ve seen and heard it all! Hope the sign is preserved the next time it gets flooded.

Yet again we have a new council and Mayor who just love to spend our money (even if it’s not there!) and then Mz Daines boldly, and correctly, reminds them that they have just added another $1m to the evaporating capital funds!

What ever happened to the concept that if you want to spend more money then you should look for the ways to remove money from other areas in order to pay for the new items? ………Instead of ramping up expenses with no earthly way to pay for those feel goods?

If anyone starts talking about Go Bonds or City Prop Taxes or higher Sales Taxes – to pay for the wish list – well then the fight is on!

If I can budget my accounts to not go in the hole and can pay for my primary bills, and save money for the rainy day surprises, and not ask for substance from my neighbors = how come City can’t do the same???

Appreciating Ms. Daines recognition that one million dollars is a lot of money, using $150,000 for improvements to vacant property primarily for recreational purposes was not in the best interest of benefiting residents in general. It remains a mystery to me why “dedicated revenue streams” for such things as drainage, roads, and public safety projects are not adequately addressed prior to frivolous designation. Wouldn’t that eliminate the need to pursue “new money” for funding our essential needs?