Comments on: Sedona Voters Prevail in Court Against City

By: Get Real

Get Real — Fri, 31 Aug 2018 15:56:15 +0000

@Jean Jenks is a (deleted by editor). People should be outraged that ALL signatures of the 111 residents of Sedona living in Coconino County were valid but illegally rejected initially.

At first only Yavapai County Sedona PBA signatures were counted in direct violation of State law thanks to the City Attorney. He illegally deemed PBA signatures from Coconino County residents of Sedona as “Not County of Majority.” Many thanks to those who brought the lawsuit.

By: @Jean Jenks

@Jean Jenks — Sat, 25 Aug 2018 18:55:47 +0000

If you wanted your name counted for the PBA petition…..
Perhaps you should of filled out the information CORRECTLY..

And we’re suppose to TRUST your facts and fiqures when you can’t correctly complete a petition!!!???

By: Jim, uptown

Jim, uptown — Sat, 25 Aug 2018 15:18:26 +0000

Good for the ones that brought that lawsuit. Hats off to them. About time somebody took this crazy power hungry group to task.

By: JeanJ

JeanJ — Sun, 19 Aug 2018 19:08:33 +0000

I am outraged that mine was one of the 111 eligible signatures not counted on the $36 million PBA Petition filed with City Clerk Susan Irvine merely because I live in the Coconino County portion of Sedona instead of within Yavapai County. A resident’s county has nothing to do with his or her eligibility to sign a petition involving a city election.

The City of Sedona violated State law ARS 19-121.01-04. In the August 10, 2018 RED ROCK NEWS “City Attorney Robert Pickels said he erred in advising City Clerk Susan Irvine that removing 35 non-residents from an initial review of petition signatures was within her authority….The role of verifying validity of signatures belongs to the county recorders.”

No lawsuit would be required had the 111 valid signatures from Sedona residents of Coconino County been included among the count of eligible signatures. In my opinion, it was a crime that litigation was needed to get the City of Sedona to follow the law.

Link: http://www.sedonaaz.gov/home/showdocument?id=35241
Entered Under the “# of Signatures” column on the 2nd page is the “Less Signatures Removed for: Not County of Majority on Petition -111”.

By: Jules

Jules — Tue, 14 Aug 2018 00:47:32 +0000

@SamTardio Good work finding that incorrect number, no excuses should be made for the city numbers.

By: Sam Tardio

Sam Tardio — Mon, 13 Aug 2018 18:48:18 +0000

This is not true; “The proposal on the November 6 ballot would establish a permanent expenditure limit of approximately $25.2 million subsequent to the Home Rule vote scheduled for the August 28 primary ballot. If approved, it would effectively cap all future city spending to roughly half of the city’s annual expenditures for the past five years.”

The cap with PBA will be $36M and the budget has been inflated as usual and to also include construction projects. The $36M is $3M more than the last 5 years except for this year which had more expenses than ever. A new council will clean up the waste before PBA takes effect but even if not the State offers a yearly override that can cover everything even the construction if we wanted. That has to be approved by the citizens which gives us oversight on the council stopping irresponsible spending.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 09 Aug 2018 23:36:38 +0000

Read in Facebook people in town are being told not to buy from folks voting no on home rule. Isn’t that illegal to do like threats? Shameful. Disgusting. I’ll vote no now.