SedonaEye.com columnist Eddie S. Maddock overhears Councilman Mark DiNunzio’s idea for a future Sedona five star resort at the wastewater treatment plant if land can be allocated
Sedona AZ (October 30, 2013) – SedonaEye.com columnist Eddie Maddock reviews the Community Plan presentations before the City Council as it is “cleaned up” so no “weaseling” happens before the public is convinced to vote yes for its development goals:
On October 1, 2013, “Sedona Community Development Department” changed its name to Sedona Community & Economic Development Department and Director Kevin Snyder wasted no time pursuing the additional charge. At the Regular Council Meeting on October 22, Snyder engaged with the Sedona City Council in the first of what he hopes will be many discussions to further advance methods to enhance local and regional progress to boost economic levels.
The following day, October 23, at a Special Meeting, the Sedona City Council listened to a presentation from Kevin Snyder along with Mike Raber, Long Range Community Development Planner, Jon Thompson, Chair of the Community Plan Steering Committee, and Marty Losoff, Planning and Zoning Chair and member of the Community Plan Steering Committee. The nature of the discussion focused on the “matrix items” of the Draft New Sedona Community Plan, which to a large extent involved “housekeeping” items such as suggested choice of words, phrases, and grammatical corrections.
Although in a generalized manner focus areas, changes to vision statement, and perhaps even more palatable methods to address such things as possible future plans for the SR179 Corridor and subdivision connecting roads were acknowledged as being “delicate.” As perhaps Councilwoman Barbara Litrell best explained, set direction without opportunity to “weasel out of it.”
Emphasis was placed on the existence of the “Plan” to serve as “guidance for community” with “expectations (intentions)” somehow intertwined.
Detailed discussions relating to CFA’s (Community Focus Areas) did not occur at this meeting except the obvious abundance of the commodity as evidenced in the frequent references to the existence of CFA’s such as the Cultural Park to Oak Creek access at the other end of the city, to community gathering places along the way to include the Chapel Area and Morgan Road in conjunction with more discreet wording as “only going to consider new non-residential development only on a scale and architectural compatible in the neighborhood.” The point was made that the importance of choice of wording was paramount in convincing people to vote acceptance of the plan when it appears on the ballot in March of 2014.
The discussion about the 200 acres of property owned by the city at the Wastewater Treatment Plant was another work in motion – twenty-six acres comprise the Wetlands Preserve. Substantial public input convinced the “planners” that low density to “no density” is the existing consensus. However, Councilman Mark Dinunzio, having obviously paid close attention to Kevin Snyder’s economic development discussion the previous day, came up with the bright idea of (perhaps) initiating some means of allocating a portion of the property for a FIVE STAR RESORT that could contribute to Sedona’s tax base.
Although it was acknowledged that the city-owned WWTP acreage is outside City Limits and under the zoning jurisdiction of Yavapai County, not even one person at that meeting referenced that such a grand resort (if, by some miracle actually became a reality) would not contribute one penny to Sedona City Coffers because, the same as Enchantment, Hilton, and other businesses not within incorporated Sedona, they do not collect city taxes!
But of course why should that matter to them when, in fact, they have the sweetheart deal of benefiting from Destination Marketing via the special interest auspices of the Sedona Oak Creek Canyon Chamber of Commerce which only in recent years has been acknowledged as the “Sedona Chamber of Commerce?”
Sedona wastewater treatment wetlands
When did that change occur and for what reason? Certainly it wasn’t indicative that they represented only Sedona businesses as members.
And so, in general, that was the discussion. Mike Raber touched briefly on lack of connecting streets, need for alternate routes, feasibility of transit plan, and trail access. Conspicuous by absence was reference to “storm water.”
As pointed out by Councilwoman Jessica Williamson at a public Community Plan review Special Council Meeting on October 30, the overwhelming “public support” during the review process included perhaps a total of 200 people many of whom were repeat visitors at the Open Houses. In addition a reported 1,000 plus comments have been received – but there really is no tracking offered of the breakdown of repeat contributors.
This Community Plan, once accepted, will affect Sedona’s total population of approximately 10,000 – it is presently being formulated by input of a questionable 1,000 comments from how many of the 10,000?
In conclusion, it’s important to remember that the Community Plan is mandated by State Law to be compiled and updated every ten years for “incorporated municipalities.” Further let it be a reminder that it simply represents a suggested guideline for future development.
Sedona Arizona 2013
Let it also be noted that since the onset of Sedona’s incorporation the original Community Plan shortly thereafter lost credibility and integrity due to code implementations such as “Alternate Standards” and “Administrative Waivers” not to mention numerous major amendments relating to zone changes. Translated: It’s only subject to translation by those in position to enforce it.
This plan is yet to be formulated for the final production upon which incorporated Sedona voters will make a decision to accept or reject in March of 2014.
In the meantime, updates to change will be available on the following link:
http://www.sedonaaz.gov/Sedonacms/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=21342
Stay tuned.
Some draft New Community Plan mind-bogglers:
“Zoning is a key tool in it’s implementation.”
Land acquisition tools such as transfer of development rights are indicated.
Participation from property owners, neighbors and stakeholders to develop a Specific Plan including any necessary rezoning is mentioned.
Support of new or existing business growth with public funds is authorized.
Providing business incubators with public land is allowed.
No mention as to where the $$$$ will come from to pay for all the special interest bennies,” but tax, borrow and spend, spend, spend looks to be coming down the pike if the electorate doesn’t vote the New Community Plan proposal down.
BTW,.FROMMER’S very popular travel guide books, which series includes Europe, is currently posting a telling sentence about the Sedona of today on the world wide web under INTRODUCTION: “…All this may sound perfectly idyllic, but if you’ll lower your eyes from the red rocks, you’ll see the flip side of Sedona — a sprawl of housing developments, highways lined with unattractive strip malls, and bumper-to-bumper traffic.”
This council’s insistence to promote businesses outside incorporated Sedona makes no sense because they do not pay City bed or sales tax. What does add up is that the C of C conveniently changed the name to “Sedona Chamber of Commerce” since by Mayor Adams’ own admission (after agreeing that) “for years Sedona has rested on its laurels. But he said Sedona has one thing that most other communities don’t have.”
“We have something that costs hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars to achieve and that’s worldwide name recognition.” (quotes from Red Rock News 10/25/13)
Neither the Sedona Oak Creek Canyon Chamber of Commerce nor the Sedona Chamber of Commerce can take credit for that, Mr. Mayor. Wish I were an Eskimo and I’d sell all of you refrigerators.
And by the way, I have friends in the VOC and ever since it’s been so vigorously publicized I enjoy shopping there if for no other reason than to avoid paying Sedona sales tax.
Why would anyone open a business within Sedona City Limits when surrounding areas are being falsely marketed and tagged with the famed “Sedona” label with City taxes footing the bill via the C of C in order to uphold their duty to their own members?
One last thing, Sedona City Council. Your recent indication that you intend to impose City Property taxes; how about figuring a way to extend that to the outlying areas you are so generously financially supporting with city taxes?
Well, Eddie – thanks yet again for a great and informative article. As a result Jean posted something that really got me thinking. Please read below:
Hey Jean, Your post relating to Frommer’s Travel site got me thinking so I went to their website and this is the latest I found on Frommer’s Travel site regarding Sedona.
“Hotels – Sedona is one of the most popular destinations in the Southwest, with dozens of hotels and motels around town. However, accommodations here tend to be overpriced for what you get. (Blame it on the incomparable views.) My advice is to save money elsewhere on your trip and make Sedona the place where you splurge on a room with a view. (aw yep this is sounding good but please read the next paragraph copied directly from their site!)
“A Taxing Situation — You can save a little bit on your hotel bill by staying in the Village of Oak Creek rather than in Sedona proper. Not only are there several budget hotels here, but also the room tax is only 7.35% vs. 13.737% in Sedona.
Read more: http://www.frommers.com/destinations/sedona/668312#ixzz2jMSUFkseHotels”
Think Frommers has made the very accurate point about increased bed taxes accomplished by our “know all Council” as instructed to do so by the “Regional Chamber” and Lodging Council…who All sold out the entire City lodging industry of which most are not members of the good old group of Regional Chamber (who sucks at least a million dollars from the City) in order to get more free money for the Lodging club to advertise their properties instead of tackling their own internal ad budgets….and somehow think they can dumb us down by their actions of higher taxation in the city and yet – Looks like Frommer’s is smarter than our elected officials, the Regional Council and the dubious Lodging Council….
…..hum…right about now I’d vote for Frommer’s to run this crazy council! They actually get how those business’s in town just got sold down the river!!!
What a great idea! A 5 star resort at a poop plant. I never would have thought of that.
What about the “Gateway Centers”, electric buses and neighborhood compost piles, Eddie? Are those still in the plan?
RE: Sedona Community Plan
TO SEDONA MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL:
What is it that you people don’t seem to understand? The Sedona Community Plan under revision is just that . . . a Sedona Community Plan!
At appx. 4:19 (10/30) watching this afternoon Council Meeting, B. Litrell makes the very unique suggestion to add to the SCP: “Support businesses located within City Limits.” Immediately Mayor Adams related to the Chamber of Commerce who obviously must support their membership, many of whom are outside City Limits and declined making such a logical inclusion to the Sedona Community Plan.
Holy Mother of whomever one wishes to finish the sentence. Why is it some of you do not understand your charge is to promote and represent ONLY City businesses and ONLY City residents, especially when it comes to drafting the Community Plan.
The original proposed boundaries for incorporated Sedona factually did include the areas represented by the existing School & Fire Districts. In particular the Village of Oak Creek didn’t have enough support to extend their inclusion within City Limits when the vote was finally decided.
How smart for them. Based on the continued attitude to bend down to the special interest group . . . yes, special interest group named the Sedona Chamber of Commerce . . . these very wise people who declined inclusion into this Great City of Sedona reap the benefits without contributing to city rules, regulations, and tax assessments.
Oh sure, you speak of residual benefits. That’s an insult and slap in the face to local businesses who in fact should be promoted as the focal point of Sedona’s expansive advertising campaign and not the other way around.
Shame on all of you who continue to represent those who by choice eliminated their opportunity to have a vote in electing you. How ironic that now some of you stand by pledging your allegiance to them.
Sustainability my foot. Soon the word will have no meaning. I agree with all your ‘loophole’ comments, Eddie (I want everyone to go throough the same approval process for any zoning change or development approval): “Let it also be noted that since the onset of Sedona’s incorporation the original Community Plan shortly thereafter lost credibility and integrity due to code implementations such as “Alternate Standards” and “Administrative Waivers” not to mention numerous major amendments relating to zone changes. Translated: It’s only subject to translation by those in position to enforce it.” I second the clear ridiculousness of a 5-star resort on the contaminated land across from wastewater AND no city taxes (or maybe theyre thing of annexing again….). I agree with alternate routes other than 89A and they should be FORCED. I can name a few possibilities. Obviously this is a retirement town, so get with the program Sedona. Also the Chamber should be independent as in Flagstaff – for obvious reasons. Please at least bid out the contract.
Marlene, your reference to “maybe they’re thinking of annexing again” leads me to believe you might recall when that attempt was made in either 1999 or 2000 in the VOC. Alan Everett was then Mayor and the reception by the standing-room only attendance in the “old clubhouse” was less than warm and cordial. I have a video of excerpts from that meeting.
To be honest, I regret that after my husband died I didn’t sell my home in incorporated Sedona and move to the VOC where those people can laugh every day as they read more about the mess Sedona has become since incorporation (and at the same time reap benefits as pointed out by Jean and Hal via their investigations into the travel agency.)
Thank you for your comment.
Eddie
I heard a person say they thought it was a great idea to build a resort at the plant. They said it never smelled bad when they’d been by it or around it.
When Sedona voters rallied to go against the city owning State Rte. 89A in City Limits, it seemed like there was a ray of hope for our future. Then came the opportunity to rein in spending by saying NO to Home Rule, but that did not happen. Based on the apathy displayed during that very important issue, it appears the majority of this “incorporated” city doesn’t give a hoot how the Community Plan will dictate the future.So, guess “you get what you pay for” will be the case and according to Jean and others it’s going to be a wad of money. Brace yourselves you apathetic fools and don’t complain when your property rights are violated as they are clever at finding loopholes to do so.
of Chandler, Arizona, liked this article on Facebook.
If you are in need of a diversion the day after the results of the school over-ride election are announced the evening of November 5th, attend or tune in via Channel 4 or live stream on City Web site Special City Council Meetings scheduled for Wednesday, November 6 @ 4:30 PM, and Thursday, November 7 @ 3:00 PM for the following purposes:
Wednesday 4:30 PM: (Council Chambers)
AB 1632 Public hearing/discussion regarding the October 2013 Draft New Sedona Community Plan as forwarded by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Thursday 3:00 PM: (Council Chambers)
AB 1632 Public hearing/discussion/possible action on a resolution for final adoption of the New Sedona Community Plan as forwarded by the Planning and Zoning Commission in October 2013 and as amended by the City Council and Call for Election prior to submission to City voters.
Eddie S. Maddock
The following e-mail from Councilman Mark DiNunzio explains his reason for having proposed the suggestion of a five-star resort at the WWTP sometime in the future. My response to him, although admittedly contains certain opinions previously expressed, finalizes the exchange.
From: Mark DiNunzio
Date: 11/9/2013 11:00:19 AM
To: Eddie Maddock
Subject: wastewater plant land development
Hi Eddie:
I am in the Seattle area until next Tuesday with an idle moment this morning to catch up on some emails. When I came across your sedona.eye article and my comments on the possible development of a portion of the wastewater plant property, I wanted to respond to you briefly before I return to sedona. we can talk more when I am back.
My thoughts on the property are (1) that it is an asset that might have significant economic value in the future. If so, the potential uses of the property ought to be fully vetted so the citizenry makes an informed decision on what, if anything, to do with the property.
My example of a high end resort was simply an example of revenue generation. Others in Hawaii, along the California coastline and even here in downtown Seattle where the University of Washington owns entire city blocks that have leased land for development and retain a financial interest in the property in perpetuity. I envisioned the citizens of Sedona possibly leasing the underlying land at wastewater for economic development and sharing in the revenues from that development in addition to receiving annual lease payments on the land. For instance, 6% of gross room sales and 3% of retail sales, the equivalent of sales and bed tax were the property within the city limits.
Anyhow, that is just one example of what might be done there. I am sure there are many more. My point was that the citizens ought not be deprived on consideration of economic benefit because of a narrower view of retaining open spaces. would we have a high school within the city if not for development of open space?
If the revenue stream provided $$ for environmental/scenic improvements such as buried power lines, sidewalks, public transportation, storm drainage, etc. ought it not be considered?
It may well be that the land is not that attractive for my example, but it may be attractive for uses that my limited mind has not identified.
point is, I think we ought to look at it when the time comes to look at it.
best,
mark
******************************************************************
——-Original Message——-
From: Eddie Maddock
Date: 11/9/2013 11:56:48 AM
To: MDiNunzio@sedonaaz.gov
Subject: Re: wastewater plant land development
As always Mark I appreciate that you took time from your busy schedule to address my concern. In this case, primarily it rests within the scope of city tax revenue being given to the Chamber of Commerce (technically Sedona Oak Creek Canyon Chamber of Commerce), completely without a business plan or method by which the funds are intended to be spent (allegedly for destination marketing) and which will, quite obviously, encompass “free” advertising for the numerous members of the SOCC C of C who are located outside City Limits and not subjected to collecting either Sedona City Sales or Bed Taxes.
As I addressed in another e-mail to the City Council, the original area considered for the incorporation of Sedona included the same as occupied by present School/Fire Districts. However, there wasn’t enough support from residents in those areas to be included at the time the vote was approved and therefore the constraints of City Limits as approximately (but identified by signs): South @ Back O’Beyond; North @ Midgley Bridge; West @ High School; and East, USFS and Wilderness Area.
The city owned land at the WWTP is not in City Limits and therefore any development out there would be under Yavapai County jurisdiction. Further, although potential funds from leasing the land would no doubt be assigned to the city (don’t really know how that would work) it would still remain a fact that City Sales or Bed Taxes would not be forthcoming.
As for any intention to annex that area to be incorporated within City Limits, I say “Good Luck.” An effort to do that in the VOC came about in 1999 or 2000 (Alan Everett was then Mayor) and the reception was short of hostile. (I have excerpts of that meeting on a video tape.) To attempt to include the area going west . . . well, I have friends in the Cup O’Gold area and also Elmersville and the reaction “You have to be kidding.”
Entire point of my ongoing rants stem directly from the FACT that I so emphatically disagree with City of Sedona contracting with the special interest and member driven Sedona Oak Creek Canyon Chamber of Commerce for “alleged” Destination Marketing. “Alleged” simply must be included considering the “deal” was consummated on the absurdity of a “maybe-might” furnish some kind of plan at the first of the year and the absurd and repeated chants from Steve Segner “Trust us.” Would any one on the Sedona City Council and/or City Staff be so reckless with your own money?
Please understand, I have no personal grudge with the SOCC C of C or Destination Marketing providing the two are not intermingled. SOCC C of C has too many conflicts with members who are not eligible for assessment of city taxes and for whom it is their obligation to advertise with their own funding sources identified as membership dues and other charges for which they directly collect money from their own members. Too many conflicts here which all serve to contribute to this ongoing “give-away” without accountability as not passing the smell test.
Little wonder businesses are closing within incorporated Sedona left and right. Why would anyone invest here when they can do so south of town, in officially the Village of Oak Creek that continues to ride on the shirt tail of the name Sedona because, as Rob Adams admitted in a recent council meeting, that name is world renowned.
Because I live on the east side of (incorporated) Sedona, (Broken Arrow Vista) I have the fortunate advantage of being conveniently located within easy access to the lovely drive south to the Village of Oak Creek where more often than not I prefer to do my shopping. What isn’t available there lends a more relaxed route to Cottonwood via Beaver Head Flat Road where, for certain, I can shop for and purchase items which at one time were readily available within Sedona City Limits.
Without City Council and/or City Staff being accountable enough to have obtained bids from Professional Advertising Agencies prior to advocating spending city tax revenue to advertise competition should, in my opinion, be unacceptable. But of course that opinion obviously means nothing to decision makers even though it is shared by many others for whom I do not speak.
Residents and Sedona city businesses, those collecting tax revenue, are for sure on the short end of the stick here. There’s no getting around it. The absurd notion that residual money will be spent in Sedona from outlying areas is just that: ABSURD. The situation should be just the opposite. Destination Marketing funding should be spent EXCLUSIVELY for the benefit of Sedona businesses in order for the real Sedona to be the base and then maybe, just maybe, outlying areas would benefit from the trickle-down effect and not the proposed “other way around.”
That’s how it is and any other argument does not have merit. As for the WWTP, all ideas, of course, are open for investigation. However unless and until Sedona is able to comfortably, honestly, and ethically handle the area within our incorporated City Limits, what right do you people have to attempt to finance the entire region (Greater Sedona) with city generated tax money?
Sincerely,
Eddie
Consent agenda, Council Meeting 11/12/13, included:
“k. AB 1700 a request authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Arizona Department of Transportation for the temporary lease of the existing building/property at 125 West State Route 89A for the purpose of installing holiday decorations and holiday related activities (e.g. warming station, gift wrapping center) for the period of NOVEMBER 15, 2013 to JANUARY 15, 2014 as part of the City’s participation in the Holiday Central Sedona event.”
Now as I write this the morning of 11/16 am I correct that according to what was not challenged at the meeting last Tuesday afternoon this facility commenced to happen yesterday (11/15) without any mention of additional cost of leasing this property from ADOT (although we know that the City is just aching to purchase that property). Over and above the pledged $25,000 the city already made to financially assist this new Chamber of Commerce venture, what are “they” spending on the side? Including the leasing of this corner property at the “Y” and also what did it cost to lug the big Capitol Tree up to the Posse Grounds and provide refreshments. Pictures of the event show Sedona Police on the scene and was any damage to the property up there while navigating that huge semi carrying a tree that no one could see anyhow except by what appears to be a peep-hole or something.
One thing Jennifer Whistlehoof is definitely good at is spending City $$$ and it would be interesting to have an EXACT accounting but obviously that ain’t gonna happen.
@ More Fat to Chew On — Thanks so much for this news. I have always said this town needed a “warming station” and “gift wrapping center”. It’s about time!
Well this Jennifer W(?) can’t take credit for all holiday central events. Parks & Wreck are offering free ice skating Dec. 2 to Dec. 8 and “skates will be provided.” Just how do “they” know how many skates to buy and what sizes? OMG, wouldn’t it be wonderful to have “their” crystal ball? Do you suppose it has already predicted the weather will be cold enough to make ice during that week or is artificial ice-making the method of choice and, again, at what cost? There’s little doubt the need for medics will prevail to tend to a potential here and there broken bone or other mishap? Hmm . . . this might be a fun thing to attend after all?
This is sounding more and more like the only missing link will be a barrel of monkeys. That is unless the city council shows up in which case they better be nice boys and girls and see to it that it’s properly “public noticed” since it would constitute a quorum. (As if that makes a difference at this stage of the game.)
Jennifer L you sound like a mean contemptuous old women!! Complaing the town wants to try something for the residents in the form of ice skating and all your concerned with is yourself!! Very selfish and quite disturbing is the fact that you may find a medical mishap interesting!!! Your hatred for anything government has tainted your common sense!!
Does anyone else understand exactly who is the person “Janice” is taking to task? “Jennifer L.?” I see no comment from such a person. Excessive ranting over a nonperson is very strange. Maybe City should provide lessons in basket weaving.
I agree with Susan L How do they know what size to have? How did they plan this? What is the cost. I really like to see how many folks show up. Better yet how many of those that show up live in Sedona. I love to see what the total cost is per city resident that shows up
Silly I don’t see hatred but I see someone that knows better. I would be concern with the liability if someone got hurt. Is the city taking out insurance? How about supervison? This is scary.
Thanks to James Poole for bringing up liability. If City is randomly issuing skates to just anyone, and how would they be able to discriminate, then isn’t that possibly an invitation for a law suit even over a simple fall while ice skating? Would Janice be as willing to assume the cost of the potential risks involved here as she is to cast stones at people whose names she can’t even get straight?
On November 7, 2013, the City Council passed Resolution No. 2013-25 adopting the November 2013 New Sedona Community (General) Plan. Voter ratification of the proposed plan is required in order to complete adoption. This issue will appear on the March 11, 2014 ballot. Information regarding this issue will be included in a publicity pamphlet.
Arguments supporting or opposing adoption of the November 2013 New Sedona Community (General) Plan, may be submitted to the Sedona City Clerk, City of Sedona, 102 Roadrunner Drive, Sedona, Arizona, 86336, for insertion into a publicity pamphlet.
Arguments cannot exceed 300 words in length. Individuals submitting arguments must provide their name, physical or mailing address and a telephone number. Only your name will be included in the publicity pamphlet. Each argument filed shall contain the original notarized signature of each person sponsoring it. If the argument is sponsored by an organization, it shall contain the notarized signature of two executive officers of the organization or if sponsored by a political committee, it shall contain the notarized signature of the committee’s chairman or treasurer.
The deadline for submission of supporting or opposing arguments is Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 5:00 p.m.
Susan Irvine, Sedona City Clerk, advises: “We will not be requiring a deposit for arguments in this publicity pamphlet.”
I guess you people never heard of insurance!! I’m sure they have it for the pool, skate park, basketball courts, baseball fields!! Bet they have to sign a liability waiver as well!!! But you people go on hating and finding fault in everything, it’s good for you !! Here’s an idea for you guys close all the facilities I mentioned above, forbid all children under age 18 from living in city limits!!! That should save you all at least 20 dollars a year on your taxes, which should make you all very very happy!! This way you all can feed on each others hate without any interruptions!! Enjoy!!
Wow Janice, the venom you spew far surpasses anything else I’ve read in this entire exchange. You accuse those who disagree with you as conveying hatred. Read you own words, Madam. You appear to be a product of the new generation that believes entitlement, entitlement, entitlement without lifting one finger to contribute to society other than complaining about those of us who are becoming increasingly disgusted with footing the bill for pathetic souls – as twice now you’ve portrayed yourself.
Your attitude as suggested in your written word indicates you would be the first in line to grab onto the opportunity to collect some of that “liability” insurance. That, my dear, would be no great accomplishment and a really fine example not only for your children, if that’s the case, but for society in general.
I’m sad for you and related offspring if they are so unfortunate to have claim on you as their mother. I base that statement on your insulting comment that Sedona should close the door to anyone under 18. Recalling the failed “Teen Center” that has NEVER been the case in Sedona since incorporation. However, thanks to the attitude you have conveyed perhaps your are correct and it might be well to do just as you suggest.
Entitlement, entitlement, entitlement is obviously alive and well in Sedona, Arizona.
Joshua!! Don’t know what your talking about? Can tell by the way you throw the word entitlement around you are connected t to the Tea Party and apparently are in love with Ted Cruse!! Not old enough to collect any entitlements ie: Social Security but when I am of age will surely gladly accept it . By the way, you seem somewhat thin skinned for a man and may I suggest you Toughen up a bit and not be so rattled by online newspaper comments!
THANK YOU JANICE! And no, I’m not connected with the Tea Party and don’t even know who Ted Cruse is. However, I do so appreciate your response because it totally substantiates all that I attempted to convey. Thank you again, more than you know. Have fun ice skating.
Hmmmmm, If I had to choose between a resort at a poop plant or a resort next to three plus massive cell towers, well, I’d drive a little further down the road and take my chances………
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/9/00102.htm&Title=9&DocType=ARS
9-102. Disincorporation
A. The supervisors of the county in which a city or town is situated shall, upon the petition of two-thirds of the qualified electors residing within the city or town within sixty days of when the petition is filed, do either of the following:
1. Disincorporate the city or town, and appoint a trustee with authority to wind up the affairs of the corporation, sell and convey its property, real and personal, pay the debts of the city or town and deposit the surplus of the proceeds of the property in the county treasury to be there disposed of for the benefit of the inhabitants of the disincorporated city or town.
2. Call for an election for the purpose of deciding for or against the disincorporation of the city or town. The election shall take place on a date prescribed by section 16-204 but not more than one hundred eighty days after the petition is filed, except that no such election shall be called within twelve months from the date of a previous election for disincorporation of the same city or town. Only qualified electors of the city or town shall vote on this question. If a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon votes for disincorporation, then the board of supervisors shall, by an order entered of record, declare the city or town disincorporated and shall proceed in the manner prescribed in paragraph 1 of this subsection.
B. If the incorporation of a city or town is rescinded or declared null and void by a court of competent jurisdiction for any reason, the superior court in the county in which that city or town is situated may appoint a trustee with authority to wind up the affairs of the corporation, sell and convey its property, real and personal, and pay the debts of the city or town. Any net proceeds remaining from the liquidation of such property shall be spent for the benefit of the inhabitants of the disincorporated city or town. An expenditure for the benefit of such inhabitants shall be determined in the following manner:
1. The superior court shall conduct a public hearing to receive the recommendations of the inhabitants for the disposition of such proceeds. The superior court shall determine the object or objects for which such proceeds shall be spent by determining in its discretion that such object or objects benefit and are in the best interests of the majority of all age groups of the inhabitants. The object or objects may include private, nonprofit organizations.
2. The superior court may appoint an advisory committee composed of the inhabitants to assist it in rendering its decision and to ensure that such object or objects are carried out and shall require the committee to provide a strict accounting of the expenditure of such monies.
3. After receiving and approving a final accounting of the expenditure of such monies, the superior court may discharge the advisory committee and trustee.
C. Indebtedness and obligations of or issued by or on behalf of such city or town shall not become indebtedness or obligations of the county, except that the county is responsible as a trustee to insure that all obligations and debts of the city or town are paid. The indebtedness and obligations of such city or town shall be paid pursuant to subsection D of this section. The city or town which is disincorporated shall continue as a political subdivision until all of the debts and obligations of the city or town are satisfied.
D. The appointed trustee shall annually estimate an amount to be levied as a tax on all taxable property in the disincorporated city or town to pay the indebtedness or obligations of the city or town. Subject to the limitation contained in subsection E of this section, on or before June 30 the appointed trustee shall certify to the board of supervisors the amount of taxes necessary to be levied for these purposes, and the board of supervisors shall levy and cause the amount to be collected as secondary taxes at the same time and in the same manner as levying and collecting general county taxes.
E. The taxes levied pursuant to subsection D of this section shall be levied until such time as the indebtedness or obligations of the city or town shall have been satisfied. The amount levied each year shall not exceed the amount levied for the tax year preceding the year in which the city or town is disincorporated.
F. In addition to the authority provided in subsection A of this section, the appointed trustee may operate the facilities of the city or town until such facilities are sold or otherwise disposed of as determined by the county board of supervisors.
G. Before obtaining any signatures on a petition required by subsection A of this section, a copy of the petition shall be filed with the clerk of the board of supervisors. The petition shall state its purpose clearly and concisely and shall be in the form and signed and verified as generally provided for initiative petitions. Petitioners have one hundred eighty days from the date of such filing to obtain the required number of signatures.
H. The county recorder shall verify the names on the petition within thirty days after the petition is completed and filed and, if valid, the board of supervisors shall proceed as prescribed in subsection A, paragraph 1 or 2 of this section. If the city or town is disincorporated pursuant to this section, the board of supervisors shall appoint the trustee pursuant to subsection A of this section within thirty days after disincorporation.
Wonder how the process of disincorporating would work in Sedona since two counties are involved here? After just having reviewed a portion of the revised community plan it seems hopeless unless such drastic measures are seriously considered.
@ Just Wondering — It would work just like it did before incorporation. Fine.
No sense to fight the system. People spoke loud when they approved Home Rule. They like Sedona’s direction. No hope for change or disincorporation. Sedona’s the cash cow for the region and chamber of commerce the cash distribution center. Look for new methods to tax the contented cows who seem to be willing to oblige footing the bill for non-profits and other entitlement whiners. End of story.
(thks for info tho for legal way to undo incorporation)
I vote for disincorporation. Throw the bums and parasites out.
AGREED! @Richard & @solution. The city of “old boys” doesn’t deserve to be incorporate. I say lets get it rolling. Great point @Richard Saunders bums & parasites!
At the meeting on Tuesday, 11/26/13, the City Council will once again discuss the proposed purchase of the property on Brewer Road.
“e. AB 1706 Presentation/discussion on the status of the contract negotiations between the City of Sedona and Surrey Vacation Resorts, Inc. for the acquisition of property located at 250 Brewer Road, Sedona, AZ, Coconino County Parcel Number 401-38-013D and/or possible action approving a proposed purchase agreement for said property.”
Pre-meeting slated for 3:00 PM, Vultee Conference Room.
Regular Council Meeting: 4:30 PM Council Chambers. Also available live stream or TV Cable Channel 4.
Oh my heaven! these folks really think they are going to buy that land on Brewer Road? What a joke! How do we their bosses get any say in this crazy routine?
Well I’ve been noticing for the last couple of months that the ADOT property at the ‘y’ has been cleaned up. Not a trace they were ever there.
Today I noticed people putting up Christmas decoration inside and on the round-a-bout there (accident ready to happen). Looks like Sedona has taken over the property? Anyone know if the City bought it without telling us? Or is ADOT deciding to decorate the highway at the ‘y’ for the holidays?
Good take on the situation Ben! Looks like Council will finally discuss – in an Open Council Meeting – Tuesday – the Brewer Road property. As far as the land at the Y – well I guess we just need to stay tuned as that expensive piece is on their list as well….oh, and lest we forget……..when the Holiday festivities start I think I heard we could stop at the old gas station at the Y and get hot cocoa and get our xmas gifts wrapped? Is this another freebie?
Oh! Have you seen the big xmas boxes at the roundabout in front of Garlands on 179 and then those at the Y roundabout? OMG! Most certainly makes me feel in “the Spirit” of Christmas.
If the City bought the old gas station without telling us equals recall and a big breaking of laws….yet think we should be asking: What is the City paying ADOT to lease that space? Anyone hear that dollar amount?
It was decided (I think on a consent agenda) to lease the “Y” property for Nov, Dec, and Jan to provide a warming and gift wrap station. No public discussion about terms (unless it occurred at a pre-meeting where most likely a lot of things slip through.) Just a guess there.
Thanks Max & Helen.
When do the neon lights go up?
@ Henry: The Sedona Community Plan will enrich special interests and pander to tourists.
Please also be aware it provides for infringement on Private Property Rights in both the Focus Areas and the Planned Areas.
According to the 8/04/2013 ARIZONA REPUBLIC, Scottsdale voters shot down their General (Community) Plan in the city’s March 2012 election. Many were unhappy that it had plenty of things for special interests to love, but nothing for residents concerned about preserving Scottsdale’s quality of life. A new Plan could go before voters in November 2014 at the earliest.
A General/Community Plan lists goals and policies that guide a city’s development and character for 10 to 20 years (ARIZONA REPUBLIC). Why not vote down Sedona’s new Plan and work to keep the 2002 Community Plan in effect?
Great point @Jean Vote NO on the new community plan. It will enrich special interest groups it doesn’t help the community.
And so the council voted 5/2 to purchase Brewer property substantially under the appraised value and without any clue where the money will come from to make improvements? Oh yeh, a “partnership” is in the future and most of us know how partnerships usually turn out. Also during council discussion reference was made to the Mayor in process of working on a partnership withe the cultural park.Time to take disincorporation seriously? Methinks that deserves an affirmative vote.
MY MISTAKE! The city council voted to buy the Brewer property for MORE THAN THE APPRAISAL!
Guess I was still out to lunch in disbelief when I learned what the leaders of the pack agreed to do with city money when I wrote my first comment.
The rest of it still stands. Mea culpa!
OMG – can you believe they – our elected, elitist, officials, spent $650K on old buildings on Brewer Road that We will now have to maintain – And they Never Asked Us? We – includes us tax payers…this is Nuts! Plus they never told us at a public meeting where we could have a say as to what it was gonna cost to maintain them or what their plans are to do something other than a “vision” and an unknown “partnership”. Their, our Council and Staff, money spending game is becoming way tooooo old!
Of course the City will get an appraisal that is below the middle price and call me crazy but why wouldn’t the savey seller also get an appraisal above the middle?
Any of us in real-estate understand how that concept works! = ya get what you ask for……..and I’ve yet to find an appraiser that didn’t do what they were asked to do.
……….and now we are stuck with paying for old buildings that are going to become the new center of Sedona? This is another reason to recall all Council (and fire Staff) who keep spending our money with such narrow vision without a business plan!
If, in fact the Mayor is trying to work with the new greedy players on the Cultural Park? …lemme tell you – this is yet another shell game!!! While the mayor continues to want to carve out his forever crown – there are so many who continue to use him for their benefits…and he never catches on!
Only players in the cultural park are those who just want a pure and fully development for all sort of commercial and dividing up the property to get the highest density possible………….I assure you (as I have spoken to one of their guys) they just want to rape and pillage and make millions as they outright laugh at the Sedona bumpkins!. They have no community benefits in mind…(other than what Staff will request and lets see how strong P&Z will stand )………….. .just $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and then there’s our Mayor getting into bed with them!
The going’s on in this little town with the very unfaithful (to Us) Council’s actions are just so far out of line that it now is ridiculous!
Somehow we need to get them to have more respect for us and financial reality and give up their regal chairs.
Usually I don’t go for people not using real names, but business people in Sedona could stand to lose a lot by participating in exchanges like this if their true identity is known. After I read a string of comments under a different article about “Local Print Newspaper” I asked someone if they knew how disincorporation would be possible, and they directed me to here because the real deal appears in an above comment about the state law including the direct link to the source.
The main point I would like to make is that if the lodging council doesn’t jump on the chance to disincorporate then it will send a huge message that what many think is fact. Small businesses are smothered at the city paid-for Visitor’s Center unless we are members of the chamber of commerce. Now the hotels that must charge bed tax, why wouldn’t they love to be rid of that and then be able to compete with lodging places outside city limits which get top billing from chamber of commerce paid for by city taxes. All my buds smart enough to have located outside city limits laugh every morning when they get up about not having to collect city taxes but reaping all benefits from city funding to chamber of commerce.
If lodging does not embrace this opportunity, then won’t it seem it’s true what many think, that they are for sure in cahoots with the chamber and somebody is making a lot of money from all the deals that seem to be going on in this three way love affair? (city, chamber, lodging)
Just a thought and thanks for the opportunity to express an opinion without bowing to intimidation like “bad idea” or worse.
Ah ha, finally some transparency in proposed revision of Community Plan.
NEW VISION STATEMENT:
“Sedona is a community that nurtures connections between people, encourages healthy and active lifestyles and supports a diverse and prosperous economy, with priority given to the protection of the environment.”
What’s missing?
No reference to maintaining a “small town character” which at long last acknowledges that part of the original intent of incorporating Sedona flew the coop years ago.
“Nurturing connections between people.” What a novel idea. What we have ongoing are battles between at least two sides on each and every issue.
Throw into the mix “Thirteen Community Focus Areas” for special attention, “each with its own set of community expectations.” And what would that mean? Town Square with a noose for public hangings? An arena Roman style with cages to house the lions between acts? Hmm, that concept might be interesting.
“Protection of the environment” still rates mention although it dropped to a whopping last place. Translated: Rest in Peace.
Darn, and we must wait until March to vote on this masterpiece.
to Transparency: Thinking your Vote No on the Community Plan message is far too subtlety well made.
Let’s all face the fact that this is a very small town of 10,000 and isn’t it the legal responsibility of the City for all the Health, Safety and Welfare issues of our small town with lots of Characters rather than: to “Nurture connections between people” etc., etc., etc.
Debate on issues is healthy as long as it is a two way street vs us being “educated” or ridiculed to think like Council and Staff. As I recall we do hire the Council through our votes and we have shown that there are issues where the voters will overturn or fire those in the lofty positions and their crazy ideals.
Looking like the new Community Plan with “Thirteen Community Focus Areas” needs very deep scrutiny by all of us.
Suggest all of us go to the city website and actually read the pearl and get through the BS language of the new bible we are being asked to vote on; https://www.sedonaaz.gov/Sedonacms/modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=21648
This guy is getting too old waiting for the return of small town character and reality in proper perspective to our size and getting some really caring folks onto our Council as we downsize the over employed Staff.
I pledge to read the entire community plan and will go from there. Hope you all will do so as well.
I agree with Wes. Please read the community plan and then reread it. It has many hidden meanings. I vote no as for a community of 10,000 this plan will enable others to control and spend your taxes. When our city council or staff make a mistake they go past it, you pay. Its time they are held accountable. The new plan only open doors for more mistakes. VOTE NO. Stand up!
Check out plans for Sedona’s future, pages 26-49, Revised Community Plan and then compare it with the following Agenda 21 link. It is sooo much like Sedona’s “vision” for the future = Socialism/Communism. Just read and compare. Say goodbye to private property rights. Please spread the word. Read it for yourselves and do not pass up the opportunity to vote on acceptance or rejection of this plan in March “special” election. Oh, it’s “special” all right.
http://americanpolicy.org/agenda21/
Does the word “sustainable” ring a bell as having been associated with the revision of the Sedona Community Plan?
Quoted below is a mere portion of Agenda 21 taken from the link provided by Steve E. in his comment above. Read away and remember, this is just a sampling of what’s in store if the “plan” is approved in March.
“AGENDA 21| AMERICAN POLICY CENTER”
“What is Sustainable Development?”
According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, SOCIAL EQUITY, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components;
global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.
“SOCIAL EQUITY (Social injustice)”
Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.” Redistribution of wealth. Private property is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice. Universal health care is a social injustice. All part of Agenda 21 policy.
So in other words: if I made money (by taking the nail-biting leap of putting all my money, and jeopardizing my family’s security, into a new business venture) because I was risking and spending and hiring and providing real jobs – I’m supposed to just bask in the concept that someone who never risked a pebble, or a sleepless night or had to delay their personal bills in order to make a payroll, wants to be a recipient of my smart moves? Pure BS.
Social justice means that I get to enjoy my harvest because I risked and worked for it instead of standing in line getting handouts from the Feds and State. Scraping my dollars together and then saving more allowed me to open a business. If I had the guts to take the risks and work my backside off than everyone else should use their own motivation to do the same instead of thinking their “income” comes from having more and more kids and taking more and more money for doing absolutely nothing as they actually get a real and non government support JOB!
Agenda 21 Policy sounds just like Obama and his free loading followers. To them I say get a Life and then get a JOB because there are plenty of jobs available! Looks like the only problem is that these Agenda 21’s would actually have to WORK!
P.S. The Agenda 21’s agenda surely reminds me of our infamous councilwomen Barbara and Jessica at their finest….not to mention the councilman John guy who keeps referencing California where he is from – which by the way is the actual by-product of the very un-financially successful utilization of the Agenda 21’s crap.