Home » From The Readers, Letters to the Editor » SFD Citizens Question Board Legal Expenditures

SFD Citizens Question Board Legal Expenditures

Sedona AZ (November 3, 2011) – In a Letter to the SedonaEye.com editor, a concerned citizen offers the Sedona Fire District Board Minutes and asks the public to be aware of the SFD business meeting decisions and discussions. The letter is as follows:


Dear Editor,

Read for yourself about the games being played by the majority of the SFD Board to bypass rules and regulations and waste hard-earned tax-payer funds.

Concerned Citizen
Sedona, AZ



SFD BOARD BUSINESS MEETING  Station #1 – 2860 Southwest Drive – West Sedona – Multipurpose Room 

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / 5:30 PM
Executive Session ~ and ~ 6:00 PM Public Session



Board Present:

David Blauert – Chairman

Craig Dible, Phyllis Erick, and Ty Montgomery – Members

Board Absent: Charles Christensen – Clerk

Others Present:

Terry Keller, Assistant Chief

Gary Johnson, Fire Marshal

Karen Daines, Business Director

Bill Whittington, Board Attorney

Sandi Schmidt, Finance Manager

Some SFD Employees

Approximately 40 Members of the Public

Tricia Greer, Recording Clerk


A. Vote to go into Executive Session Pursuant to ARS Section 38-431.03(A)(3), Legal Advice, and ARS Section 38-431.03(A)(4) Instructions to Attorney – Re: 1. Agreement with Tyler Technologies for Enterprise Resource Management Software.

2. SFD Fire Chief Search Committee. 

Mr. Blauert called the meeting to order and requested adjournment into Executive Session per ARS Section 38-431.03(A)(3), Legal Advice, and Section 38-431.03(A)(4)  Instructions to Attorney about the agendized items; Mr. Montgomery so moved, Mr. Dible seconded, and the motion unanimously passed.


A. Salute to the Flag of the United States of America and Moment of Silence to Honor All American Men and Women in Service to Our Country, Firefighters, and Police Officers. 

Upon opening the Public Session, Mr. Blauert led the Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence.

B. Items from Executive Session above:

1. Discussion/Possible Action:

Agreement with Tyler Technologies for Enterprise Resource Management Software and Implementation Services. 

One member of the public requested to speak regarding this item, as follows. 

Karen Strauch, Chapel Area: I wish to speak on the issue of Tyler Technology contract and how events in the contract’s negotiations violate SFD policies and procedures. In addition, this issue is just one more illustration of why the public should be and is greatly concerned of the actions of the majority of this Board. Tyler Technologies is to provide resource management software to the district. It’s a large contract. I have no issue with the company whatsoever, only with how the contract negotiations are being handled. I want to refer to Policy #2010-01 on Purchasing that includes contracts for services. Part 2.E refers to purchases over $10,000 and says in part, “bids and proposals will be presented to the Board with staff recommendations. At some point, Mr. Blauert took over the negotiation of this contract and instructed Tyler Technologies to talk only to him, not Karen Daines the Business Manager. Why? Mrs. Daines wrote the RFP, outlined the system requirements, and began the negotiation process. In a large contract, the logic would be to have knowledgeable people giving input. How does it benefit the fire district to have her removed from this process? How can part 2.E be followed when the staff is shut out? I quote part 8 of this same policy, “The Fire Board is a unit of authority. Apart from his or her normal function as part of a unit, Board members have no individual purchasing authority. As individuals, Board Members may not commit the district to any policy, act, or expenditure.” Where was the public meeting that appointed Mr. Blauert the primary negotiator? Again, as has happened so often before, one Board 

~ DRAFT ~ 10/26/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 2

Member has gone on a mission without Board approval in public. So, the pattern continues to repeat itself. Some Board Members do not desire staff input – certainly from your former Chief, nor from your Business Manager, nor do you seem to want much public input. However, ironically, in the one instance where an objective Board decision on the Chapel Station is required, you apparently desire to shirk your responsibility and send an objective safety issue out to a public opinion poll. Thank you.

Mr. Blauert stated this has been discussed repeatedly and asked Mr. Dible for comments.

Mr. Dible said he and Mrs. Erick served on the Committee and this was something staff wanted from the beginning; he said a collective decision was made to engage Tyler and he is looking forward to implementation. He further stated the contractual issues were resolved and it is time to vote on the contract.

Mrs. Erick said she would like to see a recommendation from McGladrey on whether our current software program is sufficient or if SFD really needs Tyler at the cost it will incur.

Mr. Montgomery asked where money is allocated for this project.

Ms. Daines responded initial implementation fees of $55,000 or $60,000 are allocated in this year’s budget; she said ongoing annual costs would be $30,000 to come from current fees to our payroll company, ADP, as well as fees for our current financial system. She explained this is a “cloud” system and SFD would not own the software, but subscribe to it.

Mr. Montgomery asked if staff was excluded from deciding if Tyler is the correct product for the district; Ms. Daines responded staff led the Committee and process to select Tyler and supports this effort; however, staff was directed to not participate in contract term negotiations, although she negotiated pricing.

Mr. Montgomery asked if, normally, contracts are negotiated by staff and, then, given to the Board for approval or disapproval;

Ms. Daines responded, “Yes”.

Mr. Montgomery asked the realistic implementation timeline with the annual financial audit, McGladrey study, upcoming budget preparation, and staff’s workload;

Ms. Daines responded it would be 7/1/12; during initial talks with Tyler, they felt an agreement by July or August could be implemented on 1/1/12, but that is no longer realistic with staff workload
for other projects and upcoming holidays; she said according to Tyler and her experience, this will be a six-month implementation; Ms. Daines said the software is “canned” requiring tailoring to SFD’s needs and, specifically, our finance system’s chart of accounts and segregated funds, as well as Human Resource components for data conversion from the existing system. This and training on a new software system will take time; there are new modules included with Tyler, such as an inventory system and fleet maintenance, SFD has not used; Tyler will not be able to implement it without staff involvement, and staff resources cannot be committed until after January 1

Mr. Blauert then entertained a motion to approve the Tyler Technologies agreement; Mr. Dible so moved, Mr. Blauert provided a second, and upon calling for the vote, it failed at 2 to 2 with Mr. Blauert and Mr. Dible voting affirmatively and Mrs. Erick and Mr. Montgomery voting against.

2. Update/Discussion/Possible Action: Fire Chief Search Committee. 

One citizen requested to speak on this item, as follows. 

Thomas Purcel, Rolling Hills: Good evening. I live in Rolling Hills and have had property there since the mid-90s. I’m on the selection search committee and some comments were made at the last Board meeting here that were kind of, oh, one-sided, if you will. I don’t think the Board was blind-sided. The Board was invited to every Committee meeting we had. Mr. Blauert and Mrs. Erick were at every committee meeting that we had. The rest of the Board Members could be like the public. Anyone could attend those meetings. So, there weren’t any secrets. There weren’t any blind-siding going on. I looked at some of the things that were raised from the Minutes of the last meeting and it had to do with legal issues. And, even though one of the Board Members thought, I’m talking about the Governing Board Members, thought that it may expose the district to liability. They thought there should be legal opinions. You can have any legal opinions from any attorney you want. I don’t care if it’s Mr. Whittington or wherever it is. It is merely an opinion. The court decides whether it is accurate or not.
Anybody can sue anybody for any reason. So, if the Board is trying to be perfect in everything. You know, God bless you for trying to do a good job and be perfect, but you are not going to get perfection. There was nothing… we did not reinvent the wheel in

~ DRAFT ~ 10/26/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 3

trying to do this selection committee process. We took the best of what we thought from other organizations. They had a blurb about worrying about Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. They wanted to put something… that could have been put on the website after our work was turned in. There was some concern about a driver’s license or Social Security number. That could have been redacted after those applications came in. Those were not hurdles that should have stopped the process. What invites your Equal Opportunity Employment Commission to come into your venue is when you start accepting Federal grants. That opens the door for the EEOC. I have been to not only weeks and months, but years in Federal court on different issues on this and I can tell you that you can put any blurb you want. It means nothing. If you have 100 firefighters and not one is a majority and the majority in our society is female, that will get their attention or could get their attention. Another thing, you could have an activist group. We had ABLE, which is Advocates for Basic Legal Equality. They can come in. I don’t care what kind of legal things you have in there. They can come in and sue you and they can take you to court. And they are fighting you with your own tax dollars. Their resources are endless. So, normally, what communities do or districts do, they wind up signing consent decrees and, usually, the consent decrees are along about the makeup in your community…makeup of males, females, different racial diversity, whatever. That’s how that whole thing gets rolling. So, just a little blurb about we’re an Equal Opportunity Employer, that doesn’t get it and that doesn’t mean anything. I’m telling you that was a really decent instrument or document. I give a great deal of credit to the Board members that did show up for every meeting and it’s something you need. You need a Chief. You need a good, decisive Chief and that was what the committee was trying to do. What the past Chiefs may not have done, they may not…

Fire Marshal Johnson informed him his three minutes were up.

Mr. Blauert reported he attended Chief Search committee meetings and has not received a committee’s request and action to date; he moved that until the committee makes the request, the Board needs to postpone it until that request is made by the committee.

Mr. Montgomery said this committee made some “pretty big mistakes” in his opinion, which was seen with the legal review following the posting that should have been done in the first place. He said he has been made aware tonight that the committee has made fairly unreasonable demands and held the process hostage for the last three weeks;

Mr. Montgomery then moved that the Board disband the Fire Chief Search Committee and start over.

Mrs. Erick asked Mr. Whittington if Mr. Montgomery was discussing something from Executive Session that should not have been discussed here;

Mr. Whittington replied he heard no detail that would violate the Open Meeting Law.

Mr. Blauert then requested a second to his motion.

Mr. Dible asked him to repeat his motion;

Mr. Blauert stated his motion is the committee has not directed or requested the Board of their decision on Mr. Whittington’s law firm and we have not received a request of any kind from the committee, and at this time, he requests it be postponed until we receive a decision from the committee.

Mr. Whittington asked if this is a motion to table.

Mr. Blauert said, “Yes”.

Mr. Dible then seconded the motion.

Mr. Blauert then called for the vote which failed at 2 to 2 with Mr. Blauert and Mr. Dible voting affirmatively and Mrs. Erick and Mr. Montgomery voting against.

Mr. Montgomery apologized for making his motion out of order. He then restated his motion to disband the Fire Chief Search Committee and start a new Committee.

The motion died for lack of a second.

Mr. Blauert then stated he would look to the Search Committee for their direction or request of the Board.


Karen Schmitt, Chapel Area: I live in the station-less Chapel area. I was going through some old papers that were bequeathed to me by a former Board member and I found the neatest thing. I found your Code of Ethics that was passed in July of 2010 and Mr. Christensen was among those who voted for it. And I thought maybe the Board needed a reminder. I found them very interesting. “The Sedona Fire District Governing Board occupies a position of public trust and is committed to observing and promoting the highest standard of ethical conduct and professionalism in the performance of their duties.” This is #1 of what you have sworn to: “Adhere to Arizona Law pertaining to conflicts of interest and pecuniary interest” – Violated. #2: “Abide by the Sedona Fire District Board Rules of Procedure and SFD policy

~ DRAFT ~ 10/26/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 4

and procedure as regards the Governing Board” – Violated. #3: “Abide by all Open Meeting Law requirements” – Violated. #4: “Abide by all pertinent laws, policy, and procedures regarding  confidentiality” – Violated. #5: “Understand the roles of the Fire District Governing Board and the Fire Chief” – Violated. #6: “Work honestly and openly with the Fire Chief to obtain factual information and resolve issues within the Fire District” – you all know you violated that, all except one member of this Board. #7: “Refrain from making use of special knowledge or information before it is made available to the general public” –  Violated. #8: “Refrain from influencing the employment of district employees” – that is an important one that has been violated over and over. #9: “Refrain from using influence of office as gained by members of the Governing Board to secure contracts or favorable action for friends, family, or business associates” – may I repeat that one? “Refrain from using influence of office as gained by members of the Governing Board to secure contracts or other favorable action for friends, family, or business associates”. #10: “Refrain from speaking or taking any action on the part of the SFD Governing Board unless specifically mandated by the SFD Governing Board at a public meeting” – of course, we know that has been violated constantly. These are not my rules. These are yours. Thank you.

James Evans, Chapel area: Several weeks ago, Mr. Blauert showed me a copy of the proposed Midway Station survey form and asked if the Chapel Station Study Committee would review it. Although the Committee did not meet, they all received a copy of the form. I received a number of comments from them and a copy of this report was given to Mr. Blauert last week. I also ask that a copy of this report be included in the Board packets for this meeting. Now I’ve not seen any potential revisions in the form and there may very well have been some. Relative to the comments of the Committee, all felt that a survey was not needed because the Committee Report provided sufficient justification to build the facility. When Station 3 was in the conceptual stage, the Board decided to build it based on the level of existing service and the concern about future needs. No meetings or surveys. It was done regardless of some complainers in the district. It is now the second busiest station in the district. There is a concern that this survey will pit Uptown, West Sedona, and the Village who already have excellent service, against the greater Chapel area. Residents are often uninformed and make little effort to learn the facts. My wife was told by a neighbor a few days ago that the Chapel Station cannot be built because the new water tank is not yet in the Chapel area. I have been asked why the City won’t approve the station. I was thanked years ago when I was on the Board for sending a Sedona fire truck to a Village fire. Some have said that since there was no station in the Chapel area when people moved in, let them live with it. And how many of our citizens do you think will look up anything on the website? If the survey is sent out, the Committee had some suggestions.  First, was to replace the word “another” with the word “a” on the outside of the form in the middle section because it now reads as if there’s already a station in the Chapel area. Two, was to send the forms to Attorney Whittington’s office or as I just learned awhile ago, to NAU instead of Cosse and Wallace. The results should be free of any suspicion of anything. The Committee suggested that the following changes should be made to the third and fourth paragraphs of the survey form. The first change is to point out that the reason for the station is to reduce emergency response time and nothing else. The second change is to provide taxpayers with some idea of how much this proposed station would increase their tax bill. After all, $2 million is a lot of money and some would have no idea of how to calculate the potential tax increase. A copy of the two revised paragraphs is attached to this report. I thank you. 

Rich Collister, West Sedona: As I sat listening to the Board over the past months, I find it mind-boggling the priorities you have undertaken as an agenda. For example, you hired the highest bidder to do an outside audit of the fire department organization and fire department operations. Apparently, you need an outside audit because you have no clue about such things, nor are you willing to acquire such information from the knowledgeable personnel who make up the fire department – people who dedicate their lives to serve the public and protect life and property. By the way, did you know that the mission of the fire department was to protect life and property? Have you ever spent time inside a firehouse or gone on any emergency runs, medical runs, auto extrications, fire emergencies, high angle rope rescues, wildland fires, assist civilians? Have you? Have you seen how the firemen start their tour, check the rigs, fire tools and equipment, their masks, their medical equipment to ensure they are in good working order?

~ DRAFT ~ 10/26/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 5 

Have you ever seen or even care how to use this life-saving equipment? I also heard that one Board Member who’s not up there tonight couldn’t even go to a certain firehouse because there was a restraining order against him. I don’t know if  that’s true or not. Let me get back to the fire department audit again. Not only is the $179,000 to hire your audit company is the highest bid by at least
$50,000 out of three. Joe Demme, who you select to run the Chief’s Selection Committee, wife works for the company. Now, if I’m not mistaken, this guy, Demme, ran for the Fire Board and lost and now he sits at the head of the Fire Board’s Chief Selection Committee. Now, I’m not suggesting it, but it sure reeks of inappropriate behavior to me. Another example, Ms. Eck up there uses fire department money to consult with an outside attorney.

Mrs. Erick stated “It’s Erick”.

Mr. Collister continued: OK, Phyllis. Don’t you trust the attorney that’s sitting right there? Do you think he’s going to lie to you? Do you think he’s going to give you bad advice? It seems that way to me. These are just two examples of many which reek of incompetence to me. Over the past few months, I’ve talked with two past-Fire Board members – one from Sedona and the other from another part of the state. They both told me that upon being elected to the respective Fire Boards, the first order of business was to get out into the fire department and visit and do ridealongs to see how the organization they govern over operates, so they can understand and better make informed decisions regarding such. Have you guys ever done any of that? I’d also like to make a quick comment about the Fire Board’s Selection Committee. Please keep Joe Demme’s statements and comments pertinent as they relate to the Selection Committee process. I don’t need to hear his opinions and comments about the fire department outside the scope of the selection process. I’m not interested. For after all, he did lose the election and I’m really not sure what he’s even doing up there. He lost. Nobody wanted him. He lost the election. So, now, we’ve got another guy who knows nothing about fire department operations making decisions to find a Fire Chief. And if he’s going to continue to make comments outside the scope of the Chief Selection process, open the meeting to a Public Forum so taxpayers and residents such as me can voice their opinion. Once again, I just want to thank the Chief and the members of the fire department.

Wendy Tanzer, Village of Oak Creek: Minutes of the last regular Governing Board meeting are available on video, so anyone can view every possible example of lack of professionalism, lack of comportment, and lack of ability to remain within the scope and authority of certain positions held. Also recorded on that video is the stark absence of leadership from Chairman Dave Blauert. The fact is all findings and conclusions reached by any appointed Committees must be brought before the Board as recommendations for actions, subject to Board approval. Period. To subvert that process would undermine Board authority, lead to utter chaos and, oh yes, violates statute ARS 38-431, subsection 1. Always the voice of reason, Ty Montgomery’s valiant attempt to bring this to the Chairman’s attention was met with Mr. Blauert’s “well, that’s a matter for debate”. No, Sir. There is no debate on this issue. Two committees or ten – one set of rules. What if well-meaning, hardworking Selection Committee members make painfully incorrect assumptions, then pursue them independently? Non-compliance with EEOC standards is serious business. For a fire district of this size with this presumed level of professional status to commit such egregious errors is not acceptable and leaves the door wide open for costly discrimination lawsuits. The words “well-meaning and hardworking” are not a defense. Ignorance of Statutes is not a defense. Perhaps that’s why this Board has a legal advisor. Ms. Erick shouted at attendees, “What is wrong with you people?” My response: “righteous indignation”. At one, a weak Chairman unwilling to evenhandedly assert authority, unable to effectively execute parliamentary rule and unaware of exactly how to manage either Board appointed committees or Board meetings. Two, a Board majority so blindly intent on the ends of their agendas, they ignore the means by which they are reached, placing the entire public trust in jeopardy.  And, three, the unconscionable suggestion by Ms. Erick of yet additional outside legal fees paid with taxpayer funds because Mr. Whittington was not able to instantly respond to her demands. There are a number of people in this district with vast business experience, some with extensive training in viewing multiple sides of a single situation. At an early Selection Committee meeting,  I attempted to bring to Joe Demme’s attention the authority issue and we were all subjected to his resulting diatribe. Perhaps it would be wise to pay a little less attention to the messenger’s yellow t-shirt and a little more attention to the message.  Thank you.

. ~ DRAFT ~ 10/26/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 6 


A. September 21, 2011 Business Meeting Minutes.

B. September 21, 2011 Executive Session Minutes. 

Mr. Montgomery moved to approve the Consent Agenda, as presented.

Mr. Dible provided a second and the motion was unanimously approved 4 to 0.


A. Discussion/Possible Action: SFD  “Chapel” Station. (Per Board Action on 9/21/11.)

1. Possible Survey of Community.
(Requested by
Chairman Blauert.) 

Diane Schoen, Chapel area: I volunteered to serve on the Chapel Station Committee and was appointed by the president and Board. This Committee spent many hours meeting, studying, and discussing all issues concerning building the Midway Station. The recommendation was made to the Board and now it’s in your hands as Board Members to step up to your responsibility and make a decision, one way or another, for moving forward. Even though I am in favor of moving forward with the building of the much-needed station to assure the safety of all the residents of the district, I’m now a little more concerned with the fact that this Board does not accept or reject a report from a duly appointed Committee. Why even bother having a Committee? Why was all that time spent? I’ll tell you why. Mr. Blauert, the president of this Board, said to me and I quote, “this Committee disappointed me. They should have presented more options, not just one recommendation”. That’s a quote.  In other words, the Committee did not make the recommendation that Dave Blauert wanted.  So, his solution is to do a costly, probably $6,000 to $10,000 community survey.  Let’s spend more money. Let’s just go out and spend more money, more public money. Just go ahead, because you don’t like the decision of a duly-appointed Committee. This Board has to make a decision. This Board should make the decision. The Committee came with a recommendation. Vote it up. Vote it down. Act like a Board. I’ve spoken numerous times to this Board. Many years ago, it’s almost two and a half years ago, about the station. I’ve spoken about illegal behaviors and decisions. I even spoke about freedom of speech for the public. And, now, again, about the shirking of responsibilities of your Board duties. It seems like whatever is said to this Board, no matter what is said, makes no difference. I only hope that the electorate is listening and making a decision of how you will vote and how they will vote in the future when choosing future members of the Board of Directors. Thank you.

Karen Schmitt, Chapel areaI would like to read a direct quote from Mrs. Erick from the 12/16/09 Minutes where she chides former-Board Member Liza Vernet by telling her, “You should be embarrassed to bring up any consideration or option for the Chapel Station in this economy”.  However, in the very next sentence, Erick states, unequivocally, “There are no options. This station should be permanently canceled.” I bring this up because just months later when she was running for office, their entire slate agreed that “A small station should be considered. We will work with Chapel residents to design an appropriate station that meets their needs.” By the way, that’s from your own 10 point postcard from the election. I have it here in case anyone doubts me, they can see it, about the need for a Midway Station, even after fighting tooth and nail against it before you ran. Fast forward to the present, a Chapel Station Study Committee was chosen, as Diane said, and asked to begin the entire study process yet again from the beginning. They submitted their recommendation to the Board after months of study at the last meeting. Evidently, the outcome did not coincide with the Board’s opinion. After Mr. Blauert openly let it be known he was very unhappy with the recommendation of the study group, I found out just how resourceful some members of this Board can be. Once again, they have met behind closed doors to come up with yet another way to delay this project. And once again, put community safety at risk. Let’s send out a survey, and now, let the people decide which areas of the city should have appropriate response times and which are expendable. When I asked Mr. Blauert, personally, why he would do a survey at this point, he said, quote, “We have to”. Why is that, Mr. Blauert? Have you made promises you are now unable to keep? Is it too embarrassing for you to vote no on this issue, now that this project has had the stamp of approval from every single expert and citizens’ committees who have studied the facts? This station has been a political football for at least five years. It’s outrageous that this Board would continue to use excuses and transparent delay tactics when the lives of both me and my neighbors are at risk every ~

DRAFT ~ 10/26/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 7

minute of every day. During the last election, Blauert and Erick said in their ad, “The opposition has pledged and promised all sorts of stuff. Doesn’t every politician running for office?” That’s in your ad and I have that with me, too. Speak for yourselves. Not every politician misleads the public. Thank you.

Joan Shannon, Uptown: My question is, are we going to have a fire department that’s run by the fire department and by a Fire Board that was elected to do their job, or are we going to have a fire department that’s run by community surveys? I remember, years ago, when John Sather, you remember him, Dave? When John Sather did our first community development, he had meetings all over town, asking people what do you want our town to look like? Which direction do you want your town to go? What do you want here? What do you want there? Depending on what part of town he was in, he got very different answers. If he had a meeting in Uptown, us Uptown people had certain things we would like to see. If he went to West Sedona, and my husband and I went to all the meetings, if you had a meeting in West Sedona and brought up something about Uptown, West Sedona people would say, well, why should we care about what’s Uptown? We don’t live up there. We live in West Sedona. We only care about what we have in West Sedona. We don’t care about Uptown. Let Uptown people take care of Uptown. I think that’s the same attitude you will get if you do a survey. If the surveys happen to pull people out of Upper Red Rock Loop Road and Chavez Crossing, I know what the answer’s going to be. Why should the Chapel have a station? You closed our station down. So, we’re not for a station in the Chapel because we don’t have one. I don’t think this is a good idea to have a survey because I think the other side that wants a Chapel Station can just as easily get the money together, hire an organization, and do their own survey and come out with an entirely different result than you come out with, if your result is the one you want – no station. So, then, it would just be a battle of surveys. I think we have a perfectly professional fire department. I was hoping we’d have a professional Fire Board, but it seems like our Fire Board’s in chaos every meeting. You don’t seem to get anything resolved and done properly. So, I think it’s about time to, there’s been two committees, make a decision and go forward and get this done, and forget about spending our tax money, again, after all the money you’ve spent, on another survey. I sometimes think all these things come up just to overwhelm us and to get us so tired of all the things going on that we don’t come to so many meetings anymore. Well, that’s not going to happen. We’re still going to come. And you should not be running the fire department by community surveys. Thank you. 

Thomas Purcel, Rolling Hills:  I do like firemen. My twin brother was a fireman. And it would be nice in an ideal world if we had a fire station every couple of thousand feet and maybe, perhaps, if we could have a police substation along with them every couple of thousand feet. I thought Mr. Evans’ committee did a lot of hard work and I give them credit for that. What I wanted to see and I did not see, as far as expenses go, I did not see anything about the per capita tax. There was an article in the Red Rock News on March 18th by Patrick Whitehurst where it said Sedona lost 8% of their people on the last census. That’s approximately 900 residents. It means we have a declining population. When you have a declining population, you have fewer people to pay taxes, which means the remaining people pay more taxes. I think you have to look long and hard when you have a declining population and when you have an economy like we have now, whether you can embark on a large construction project. If you have a fire station or even a police station within a couple hundred feet of you, that doesn’t guarantee you’re going to get immediate and expeditious service. Some neighbors and I were walking back from Wildflower two years ago when they were still building the roundabouts. We were on Brewer Road and the neighbor tripped on a portable sign, went down, hit his head on the pavement, and blood started to spew out, and I immobilized him and I held him for the EMT guys and every siren I heard, I thought I was going to be relieved. There were four Sedona Police cars there before the first fire personnel showed up. And I have no problem with that because I know the fire people were busy. What I’m trying to say is, if you have a fire station next door and they’re out helping someone on  I-17 or wherever, you can wait a long time. You are not guaranteed immediate service because they are close by geographically. I hope because of our declining population and because of our economic situation right now, I would hope the Board would take a long, hard look before we rush into any large appropriations or expenditures. Phoenix Fire couldn’t afford their own resources. Their fire union was good enough, they took a vote, they voted last ~

~ DRAFT ~ 10/26/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 8

year to take a 3.4% wage reduction so they didn’t have to lay off fellow firefighters. I  wouldn’t want future reductions to harm our firefighters that way and I’m sure that would be a difficult choice to make. I just hope the Board gives it long and careful consideration. Thank you very much and, again, I think that committee did a good job, except I would have liked to have seen the per capita tax. Thank you.

Corrie Cooperman, Chapel Area: I’m also a member of the Chapel Study Committee. I’m here to address the issue of a survey to help you decide whether or not to build the Midway Fire Station in the Chapel area. Chairman Blauert, you did ask our committee to conduct such a survey as part of its research. After purposeful discussion, our study group concluded that conducting such a survey would
produce unreliable input because the public at large is not informed about the complexities and variations in response times that exist in different sections of Sedona, nor are they informed about budget considerations and project design details of the proposed Midway Fire Station. More importantly, our study group also uniformly felt that matters of public safety should not be decided by a survey. I would like to put into perspective for you the inappropriateness of using a survey to decide a critical safety matter. Can you imagine the police department sending out a survey to ask Sedona residents which areas of Sedona should receive topnotch policing and which ones should receive inadequate policing? That is, essentially, what this proposed survey will accomplish. The most outstanding finding of the Chapel Fire Station study committee was that the mid-Highway 179 corridor which includes, as you know, 600 homes, 3 large churches, and a resort is grossly unprotected in times of emergency. With an average response time of over 10 minutes, people with life threatening situations could die and homes could go up in flames before firemen arrive. Another important finding was that 1 out of 8 times, the Village of Oak Creek also faces similarly dismal response times because their firemen are out serving other areas, especially the Chapel area. These are facts that would not be known by people filling out your survey form. The building of Midway Station is really a decision that should be made by informed people with power to make the decision, and that’s you. You have the facts, you know you will only have to raise the mil levy 3.3 cents to finance that fire station, to build it and also maintain it. That comes to approximately 11 to 12 dollars per household. Per capita would be another matter. Less. I want to ask you to abandon the use of a survey and instead, please discuss in this meeting tonight the merits of building this critically needed fire station. With interest rates so low and building costs so low, there has never been a better time to build this station and to begin to equalize the quality of fire protection throughout the district. Thank you.

Mr. Blauert asked for Board comments.

Mr. Montgomery asked Mr. Blauert why he feels a survey is necessary.

Mr. Blauert said it is $2.6 million at an economical time such as now; he feels that everyone is looking at “every penny in their pocket” and there are people losing their homes in Sedona; he feels it should be voiced by everyone in the community. He said he does not understand how the Midway Station can only be $22,000 per year for operations.

Chief Keller said that was intended to represent our estimated utility costs for that facility over the course of a year because we would use existing apparatus and staffing to operate it in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Blauert heard a recommendation today to let all the voters look at the request and need through a bond issue. He does not find it comfortable to build the station without the taxpayers having their opinion expressed.

Mr. Montgomery agrees people in the respective areas will vote for their respective areas, and the Board is supposed to make decisions for everyone in the district. He said both Fire Board campaigns in the last election committed to build the Chapel Station and recommendations from this Committee, previous committees, prior and current staff, and general tone of the population says “We should build the
Chapel Station”. He disagrees with conducting a survey, and feels the Board should vote on authorizing the expense of building.

Mr. Dible said most people have not had an opportunity to read what this survey says, and then read it aloud as follows: Sedona Fire District Midway Station Taxpayer SurveyYour SFD Governing Board is deciding whether or not to proceed with construction of a new fire station in the Chapel area and would appreciate your input. In April 2011, a SFD Chapel Station Study Committee was formed to explore the need, feasibility, design options, and financing for a possible fire station in the Chapel area. Since this station has the potential to serve surrounding areas including back-up for the Village of Oak Creek, the 

~ DRAFT ~ 10/26/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 9 

Committee decided to rename the facility the Midway Station. On September 21, 2011, the Committee issued its final report recommending a Midway Station to reduce emergency response times for both the greater Chapel area and the Village of Oak Creek. This report, along with the Committee’s meeting minutes and video recordings can be found on the SFD website. Please review these sources to become fully informed on this issue. The recommended two-bay station would cost an estimated $2.6 million using $600,000 in available reserve funds and an additional $2 million in borrowed money. This would result in a mil levy increase of 3.3 cents, which would mean a fire district tax increase of approximately $12 on a home assessed at $350,000. Existing personnel and vehicles would be transferred to the new facility. The estimated annual operating expenses would be $22,000. Future expansion including increased staffing and vehicles is possible. Since this station would be financed by all the taxpayers within the SFD service area, your SFD Board would like to hear from you before we make our final decision. What do you think? Please let us know by completing the survey.

Mr. Dible said this survey was referred to as a transparent delay tactic, that the public is uninformed, and the survey would be a waste of money; however, he believes before spending $2.6 million, district taxpayers should have the chance to voice their opinion.

Mr. Dible said the survey is just a draft and subject to revision.

Mrs. Erick asked who put the survey together;

Mr. Blauert replied he worked on it with Mr. Dible’s help.

Mr. Dible stated he is on the record as being in favor of a satellite station in the Chapel.

Mrs. Erick said she had not seen the survey until receiving her Board packet and would not have approved it because she believes $22,000 in operating expenses is deceptive. She asked Business Director Daines what was received in the budget for the proposed station and if it was $1.2 million;

Ms. Daines responded she was not sure to what Mrs. Erick was referring.

Mrs. Erick said there was one year the Board received the budget in your account even though the station was not built.

Ms. Daines stated SFD has never appropriated operating expenses for the proposed station in any budget because it has not been approved; she said $22,000 represents new, additional money over existing operational funds.

Mrs. Erick asked what the total annual operating costs would be to taxpayers;

Ms. Daines responded the only additional cost would be $22,000 in janitorial supplies, utilities, and small amount of operations and maintenance; the facility would be under warranty and staff does not anticipate any large repair costs.

Mrs. Erick asked Chief Keller how many personnel would be at the proposed station; he responded the plan is to minimally staff it with three personnel on three shifts.

At this point, an audience member called out that Mrs. Erick should recuse herself from voting because of her conflict of interest.

Mr. Blauert called for order.

Mr. Blauert then moved to move forward with the survey at a cost of approximately $4,100; he also commented paid personnel would not count the survey, but hopes they can find community members to work with Committee Chairman Evans and one Board Member

Mr. Blauert requested a second to his motion.

Mr. Dible said he wants to meet with Mr. Evans to discuss the survey further and come to the next Board meeting with a decision, but believes the survey should not be sent in its current form.

Mr. Blauert withdrew his motion.

Mr. Dible then moved he work further on the survey and meet with Mr. Evans to come back to the next Board meeting with a recommendation; Mr. Blauert seconded. Upon a call for the vote, Mrs. Erick abstained; the motion passed with a vote of yes from Mr. Blauert and Mr. Dible with Mr. Montgomery voting no.

Mr. Whittington stated an abstention counts with the majority.

Mr. Montgomery then moved to accept the recommendations of the Committee, as they were made including the mil rate increase and to build the Chapel Station; the motion died for lack of a second.

B. Item from Board Member Ty Montgomery:

1. Monthly Update: Current Fees to Date for Legal Services Provided to SFD. 

Mr. Blauert stated legal fees to all the law firms are absolutely appalling and need to be better handled.

Mr. Montgomery asked for the total of September;

Ms. Daines replied $14,000 for Mr. Whittington’s firm and $7,000 to $8,000 for Ridenour, Hienton & Lewis.

Mr. Montgomery said it was $22,000 just for September; he thought the Board previously discussed a policy that anything produced by an attorney at the Board’s request must be distributed to all Board Members.

Mr. Whittington said the prior discussion was the obligation for Board Members who contact legal counsel to let the rest of the Board know, but is ~

DRAFT ~ 10/26/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 10

unaware of a specific policy requiring distribution of documents; however, he said it is the habit of legal counsel and Board to do so.

Ms. Daines said that is not included in the Legal Assistance Policy, but it states the Board Chairman should notice the rest of the Board when it occurs; previous discussion was about any documents being produced by attorneys become the property of the district and should be distributed to all Board Members because they act as a body and not individual units of authority; additionally, copies must be provided to SFD as it acts as the repository for that information.

Mr. Montgomery said in reviewing legal bills, he sees legal opinions and letters referenced; as an example, he said a letter was prepared regarding “unjust enrichment” for the amount of $500 and he has no idea what that is or why we got it; he stated as a member of the Governing Board that oversees district spending, he should be informed about same; he stated from $22,000 of services, his name was only connected to three items – two e-mails and one phone call to Mr. Whittington totaling around $100.

Mr. Montgomery then moved that it be policy all Board Members receive copies of all legal documents procured by a Board Member paid by the district, unless deemed confidential for an appropriate reason through attorney-client privilege.

Mr. Whittington said every Board Member is entitled to see all the documents, and the Board as a whole owns the confidentiality from an attorney relating to district business; there are no
individual Board member items, but rather they belong to the entire Board.

Mr. Montgomery said he does not have time to call all the law firms regularly to make sure he has received all documents and the Board should all be “cc’d” on district business to be able to make correct decisions.

Mr. Blauert then provided a second for the previous motion. The motion unanimously passed at 4 to 0.

Mr. Blauert commented he has recommendations for Board level control of legal fees and looks to Chief Keller to control the staff side.

Mr. Dible did an analysis of all legal bills from the different firms starting with this fiscal year on July 1st through the end of October although it included some legal work done in June; he created 22 categories of where money has been spent and asked a copy of his analysis be included with the Minutes (attached).

Mr. Blauert clarified the charge regarding “unjust enrichment” was not SFD’s and has been retracted.

Chief Keller asked why there was a letter to Mr. Dible regarding that topic listed on the invoice;

Mr. Dible said he had no idea since he never received it.

Chief Keller said staff also spent time reviewing the $50,000 in legal bills analyzed by Mr. Dible and that staff only produced 15.8% of those legal expenditures and the rest resulted from Board actions; he declared staff has a responsibility to be frugal in using legal services and will continue to do so, although there are times it is appropriate to procure legal advice regarding verbiage on agendas and related items; he said Ms. Greer has his express permission to contact Mr. Whittington regarding those matters and for anything beyond that, Ms. Greer would require his permission to talk to Mr. Whittington and the same holds true for Ms. Daines regarding contract or other SFD business matters. Additionally, Chief Keller said he researched five fiscal years of legal expenses, as follows:

In 2006, $28,000 was spent with $32,000 budgeted; in the following years: $33,000; $39,000; $67,000; $53,000, and $57,000 last year; the $45,000 budgeted for this year has already been exceeded with seven months remaining in the fiscal year; he agrees with Mr. Blauert that these expenses must be controlled. He then offered an example of a legal expense from Blake Whiteman at Ridenour, Hienton & Lewis who charged $25 to “review” the following e-mail from Ms. Greer: Please note the Fire Chief Search Committee meeting previously scheduled for tomorrow has been canceled by the Committee Chairman Joe Demme. Thank you. It was determined Mr. Whiteman was charging SFD to review every Agenda and Minutes from the e-mails noticing everyone about upcoming meetings in spite of the fact SFD was also charged by Mr. Whittington as the district’s attorney; he said Mr. Whiteman has since been removed from the group e-mail list. Chief Keller stated that type of thing is going to stop;

Mr. Blauert agreed and said a policy for the Board would be discussed later on the Agenda.

Mr. Dible said in his analysis, “Board Meetings” was a large figure and included those e-mail reviews.

2. Update: Status of SFD Reserve Program. 

Mr. Montgomery said the reserve program is on hold; former-Chief Hazime was working on it with them. Mr. Montgomery said with the McGladrey audit underway and other on-going projects, they decided to table it until after a new Fire Chief is found, and there is no money available for it currently; he said with ~

DRAFT ~ 10/26/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 11

potential changes to the organization, it is not the time to implement a large personnel program.

Mr. Montgomery said he is for the concept, as he and Chief Keller discussed, but it is tabled for now.

Chief Keller said another postponing factor was trying to bring Human Resources support to help with those new hires; he reported overtime has been significantly reduced from recent years and if they can keep firefighters healthy, that number can remain in line with what an organization our size should be.

Mr. Blauert thanked him for that good news and stated the reserve program would be on hold.

C. Items from Board Chairman David Blauert:

1. Discussion/Possible Action: Updates to “Legal Assistance” Policy. 

Mr. Blauert said the ease of being able to “pick up a phone” and run up legal bills is ridiculous and must be controlled; he asked for Board opinions.

Mr. Montgomery said he reviewed the draft Legal Assistance Policy which says all requests for legal assistance must be approved by the Chairman before calling an attorney.

Mr. Blauert said it could be another designated person on the Board and it will help control costs.

Mr. Montgomery is concerned about it being too restrictive in contacting the Board attorney; he does not see legal assistance being abused by staff, even though there have been assertions to that effect.

Chief Keller said Ms. Greer has a legitimate business need to contact Mr. Whittington periodically regarding Board business and Mr. Whittington’s practice has been to occasionally contact her regarding Agenda items and Board-related issues.

Mr. Montgomery said he has heard allegations that firefighters can call Mr. Whittington directly;

Mr. Blauert replied that is not true;

Chief Keller confirmed same and said it has been strictly kept to Executive Staff and the Fire Chief for appropriate business needs.

Mr. Dible said he referenced Policy #2000-06 during the August 31st meeting, which he believed was the current version of the Legal Assistance Policy as it was in his Board information binder; however, since then, he received a copy of the newer version approved in 2006; he said that Policy states: “Any requests for legal assistance from the Governing Board members has to come from the Board Chairman or a Board member with notice to the Board Chairman.” His suggestion for revision is to add “and approval by the Board Chairman” to have a “gatekeeper”
for legal expenses.

Mr. Montgomery gave an example of him wanting legal opinion on an issue that the Chairman disagreed with, he could be told he could not receive legal counsel about the item; he said he believes the Board must have the right to contact the Board attorney and exercise their own good judgment of the money being spent.

Mr. Dible asked how the legal bills could be controlled in a reasonable way.

Chief Keller said, historically, the organization has established Board policies which control the behavior of the Board and Standard Administrative Procedures (SAPs) to dictate procedures for personnel; he said the referenced document is a Board Policy and SFD has a SAP on this topic, as well, with the Fire Chief being the “gatekeeper” for legal requests; he
suggested the SAP needs to be updated because it refers to a Deputy Chief, which SFD no longer has.

Mr. Blauert wants self-policing by the Board and a Policy that controls it; he is sorry Mr. Montgomery feels he would turn down his legal requests.

Mr. Montgomery said, hypothetically, it puts any Chairman in a difficult position because it would be easy to make an accusation a Chairman was denying requests based on political reasons and his comment had nothing to do with Mr. Blauert personally.

Chief Keller suggested they simply state that any Board Member notice the rest of the Board with his/her intention to contact legal counsel prior to such contact;

Mr. Dible says current Policy just states “notice to the Board Chairman”;

Mr. Montgomery agreed that is appropriate for the Board to do.

Mr. Dible asked if the Policy should just be left alone.

Mr. Whittington said this comes up periodically when legal bills increase and his recommendation has typically been to require some sort of reporting, but to not  “tie a Board member’s hands” and that any legal contact be subsequently reported to all the Board at an agendized monthly meeting; this would allow the Board to execute control.

Mr. Dible asked what Mr. Whittington does when a non-Board Member calls him for legal advice; he said he answers the question and said it is extraordinarily rare for his firm to get calls regarding SFD from anyone other than senior management or the Board; on a rare occasion, he gets a member of the public complaining about an issue and directs them to the Chairman or management.

Mr. Dible says the Board must conscientiously notify the Board Chairman before making contact with an attorney; Board consensus was to keep the current Policy. 

~ DRAFT ~ 10/26/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 12

2. Discussion/Possible Action: New Board Policy regarding Contract Authorization. 

Mr. Blauert asked for comments.

Mr. Dible said the amount was left blank;

Mr. Blauert asked if the Board had passed a $5,000 limit on contracts.

Ms. Daines said she was unsure to what Mr. Blauert was referring.

Mr. Montgomery said the draft was e-mailed to the Board from Mr. Whittington’s staff today.

Mr. Blauert moved this item be tabled; Mr. Montgomery seconded; the motion unanimously passed.

3. Discussion/Possible Action: Memorandum of Understanding between City of Sedona and Sedona Fire District for Police Services. (Tabled from 9/21/11 Business Meeting.)

Mr. Blauert said he no longer wants this MOU because legal expenses have accrued exceeding support received from the police;

Chief Keller said the original agreement term was from July 1st to the end of the year; the MOU is being reviewed by the City Attorney again; he agrees the expense is not warranted and civility seems to be maintaining at meetings;

Chief Keller stated the City has generated an invoice for past police attendance, which was being held until the MOU passed.

Mr. Blauert then moved to do away with the MOU between the City of Sedona and SFD and recognize any outstanding liabilities for the police service at this time; Mr. Montgomery seconded and the motion was unanimously approved at 4 to 0.

4. Discussion/Possible Action: Resolution Establishing Standards by which Services may be Contracted to Private Parties by the SFD by SFD Resident Doug Ayres. 

Mr. Blauert asked Doug Ayres to speak.

Mr. Ayres requested the Board adopt the proposed Resolution, which has been called an anti-corruption resolution by some jurisdictions. He said most jurisdictions adopted this as an ordinance with misdemeanor penalties and referral to district attorney for potential felony penalties. He submitted this to Mr. Blauert twice for Board consideration; his request was fomented by a considerable number of
items in the McGladrey contract seeking ways to outsource present SFD employee functions.

Mr. Ayres said, if adopted, it would encompass all RFPs, RFQs, informal and formal bids, and contracts for services issued by the district for $2,500 or more and would require: (1) a penalty of perjury statement for bidders that know election contribution or any benefit, payment, goods, cash, or service has been or will be made to any Board member or candidate or district employee for four years prior to contract duration and four years thereafter; (2) bidder has not and will not employ a director or district employee for four years prior to and after contract expiration; (3) CPA certified contractor personal or
business financial capability statement by any contractor; (4) background investigation reports of several specific levels for all proposed contractor employees and adequate proof of applicable technical and professional capabilities; (5) tightly define comparison of contractor with district certified costs reasonably borne to assure lower expense and equal quality of contract versus district employee services; (6) annual report of service costs and quality by the district in all contractors with one year cancellation if contractor costs rise or quality drops, with a four year limit on all contracts;  (7) statement of specific taxes and other revenue sources to be provided to, or utilized to finance, any contract; (8) contractor compliance with all Arizona laws including public records and open meeting.

Mr. Ayres said taxpayers can draw their own conclusions as to why if this Resolution is not considered and adopted by the Board.

Mr. Blauert said Mr. Ayres mentioned agencies have adopted this type of resolution and asked him to name them;

Mr. Ayres said he cannot because those have been adopted in executive session because of legal problems as well as threatened and actual lawsuits; he was in those executive sessions and sworn to not divulge those jurisdictions.

Mr. Blauert said he had asked for legal review of this by Mr. Whittington who thought it would generate much extra work for staff;

Mr. Ayres said, historically, it has not because the concept of cost reasonably borne is known by better administered jurisdictions;  he said some extra work is required.

Mr. Blauert said he was concerned about extra work for staff, but agrees with some of the requirements.

Mr. Ayres said he would work with and instruct staff, at no charge, on costs reasonably borne.

Mr. Montgomery stated he likes some of the ideas, but said SFD does not have ordinances;

Mr. Ayres said that is why you could not have a legal misdemeanor behind it;

Mr. Montgomery agrees with having a “level playing field” for contracts, although has concerns about restricting former SFD employees from working for other agencies for four years; there is merit in the document but it must be ~

DRAFT ~  10/26/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 13

tailored to SFD;

Mr. Ayres said that has been done by some agencies.

Mr. Dible commented it would require additional legal expenses to modify and would defer to Mr. Whittington’s  opinion.

Mr. Whittington reviewed the document and identified portions that could be used and portions SFD may not use because of statutory limitations; he said it would take time to generate a document to conform.

Mr. Dible asked Chief Keller if this would be overly burdensome for staff to follow;

Chief Keller responded it does seem to create opportunities for added scrutiny regarding contracts; he said, however, he agrees it would help create a level playing field and other items for the organization to pay attention. He stated with the Board’s consensus, he could contact Mr. Whittington for the lists of items to be potentially used and not to be used; staff could then draft a revised version and bring it back to the attorney for clarity.

Mr. Blauert stated that is reasonable.

Ms. Daines said the cost reasonably borne piece would result in the most staff work; when SFD considers whether it is better to outsource or perform services in-house, staff must do an analysis and has done
so in the past for ambulance billing and dispatch services; from that perspective, it is not an additional staff burden, but rather, is our responsibility to make sure due diligence is performed when bringing
recommendations to the Board.

Mr. Ayres repeated that taxpayers can draw their own conclusions as to why this resolution is not considered and adopted by the Board.

Mr. Blauert expressed his appreciation for the hard work Mr. Ayres put into this and asked Chief Keller to talk to Mr. Whittington keeping in mind needing to decrease legal fees and update Mr. Ayres; Board consensus was given.

5. Update: Status Report on Performance, Cost, and Management Audit of the Sedona Fire District by RSM-McGladrey. 

Mr. Blauert stated McGladrey’s report is included in the Board’s packets; it contains no findings, but reports McGladrey is working with SFD staff. He said they were very complimentary of SFD staff support to get the project completed and keep costs controlled. Mr. Blauert said he would share all reports with the Board and also wants to keep the public informed. A copy of the report is on the website.

6. Update: Request for E-mail Records of Former-Fire Chief Nazih Hazime, Former-Fire Marshal Will Loesche, and Business Director Daines from Chairman Blauert

Mr. Blauert said this has been on-going and he received a huge amount of e-mails from Ms. Daines; he has been informed e-mails from Will Loesche and Nazih Hazime have been deleted. He wants to meet with the IT Technician to discuss satisfying the request.

Ms. Daines asked Mr. Blauert what he was looking for in the e-mails.

Mr. Blauert replied there was a period of time when Insurance Services Organization rating was discussed and he wants to see what the response was to people in Sedona on that area.

Ms. Daines asked him to clarify;

Mr. Blauert said when the ISO issue became controversial and lawsuit threats were made to the Board is the area he is interested in seeing.

Ms. Daines asked why her e-mail;

Mr. Blauert responded because she met with commercial people with Chief Hazime and Will Loesche.

Ms. Daines responded our role in the organization requires they meet with taxpayers who request meetings.

Mr. Blauert requested this item be tabled until he can be further enlightened on what happened by the head of IT;

Ms. Daines said she oversees the IT division and would be happy to answer questions about the system.

Mr. Blauert said he would meet with her and this is public information;

Ms. Daines stated some e-mails are public records;

Mr. Blauert said them being “wiped off” has taken that away from the public.

Ms. Daines stated per State Statute, as a special district, SFD is required to retain e-mails for the period that we deem they are useful, although exceptions include e-mail involved in a legal issue; she said
Mr. Blauert has her e-mails because she just happened to keep them, but typically, when employees leave the organization, there is no further need for their correspondence unless there are items they want to pass on to their successors or subordinates pertaining to on-going district business; she said it would not be common to have those e-mails from many months ago.

Mr. Blauert said he made the request in April;

Ms. Daines said, correct, and at that time, our IT department did the search requested for e-mail correspondence between the three staff members and six business owners and no e-mails existed between those individuals.

~ DRAFT ~ 10/26/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 14

Mrs. Erick asked Mr. Whittington if those e-mails are public records; Mr. Whittington said the short answer is “yes”;

Mrs. Erick then asked if there were legal ramifications for someone that deleted those e-mails after a request was made.

Mr. Whittington said it gets more complicated, but there are sub-parts to record retention rules and one of those requires records be destroyed once past useful life; he said he is not able to answer her question “yes or no”, although it is conceivable someone could be held responsible for destroying public records; he said it is not obvious that is the case because e-mails were destroyed and it may well be
it was required certain e-mails be destroyed per the records retention rules; he pointed out he has not been “in the loop” for the request.

Chief Keller reminded them of the technological “explosion” and that Mr. Blauert’s request created 8 reams – one case – of paper to fulfill which is a lot of expensive server space; so, the law has been tailored to allow organizations to delete e-mails because saving them on servers for years is costly.

Mr. Blauert said he is not accusing anyone and made the request and a second one, although there is disagreement it was received; he said he backed it up with an attorney’s request to staff; at the time, it was a heated situation in Sedona and he needed clarification; he said he would meet with Ms. Daines to discuss the system and maybe the Board would never have to consider it again.


A. Monthly Staff Report – Fire Chief Terry Keller. 

Chief Keller reported the following:

Cass Crandall and Shane McCormick of Walker and Armstrong in Phoenix are currently conducting SFD’s annual statutory financial audit.

Requested the Board consider a budget “kick off” public workshop on Thursday, 12/8/11, to discuss the Board’s thoughts on the budget process and staff’s forecasts.

Attended Northern Arizona Healthcare’s Current Concepts in Cardiac Care Conference on 10/1/11 highlighting “chain of survival” for successful resuscitation of cardiac patients including citizen CPR, pre-arrival dispatch instructions, dispatcher-instructed cardio cerebral resuscitation, and trends in advanced life support by EMS providers, catheterization lab treatments, post-arrest intensive care unit; a SFD patient successfully resuscitated attended the conference. SFD’s Lead Dispatch Supervisor, Jeff Jennings, was a presenter about the importance of dispatch-instructed CPR to 9-1-1 callers; Mr. Jennings will also give a presentation to other agencies at an upcoming conference in Phoenix; Chief Keller expressed his pride of our Regional Communications Center and Mr. Jennings’ efforts.

Annual Police and Fire Charity Basketball Game will be this Saturday at Mingus Union High School.

Reminded the Board about the economic conference in Flagstaff next month;

Mr. Blauert instructed him to purchase a table, but he would pay for his own seat.

Response statistics since the last Board meeting totaled 362 calls: 28 fire-related, 66 special duty, 218 EMS, 6 technical rescues, and almost 50 interfacility transports. 

B. September Financial Report.

The Board had no questions on the finance report.

C. Fire Marshal’s Safety Message.

Fire Marshal Johnson brought a small space heater to share safety concerns. He said their benefit is to give heat in confined areas, but cautioned they should not be used with extension cords because of fire
danger. He asked all to check their heaters to make sure they have a “kill” switch or thermostat to shut them off if they fall over. He discussed the new “hands only” CPR and how it can be life-saving as, basically, your hands become the victim’s heart while medics are on the way.


The meeting adjourned at 8:15 PM.

David Blauert, Chairman of the Board

Visit the SedonaEye.com daily! Follow the Sedona Eye for the best News and Views! Subscribe now.



  1. Breaking Independent News says:

    I just like the valuable info you supply on your articles. I’ve bookmarked your weblog and check again right here frequently. I am fairly certain I’ll be informed right here! Best of luck for the next! Tom Palmer, Irvine

  2. Sedona Eye SFD Minutes Report says:

    ~ DRAFT ~

    Station #1 – 2860 Southwest Drive – West Sedona – Multipurpose Room
    Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / 5:30 PM Executive Session ~ and ~ 6:00 PM Public Session

    ~ MINUTES ~

    Board Present: David Blauert – Chairman;
    Charles Christensen – Clerk
    Craig Dible, Phyllis Erick, and Ty Montgomery – Members

    Others Present:
    Terry Keller, Assistant Chief
    Gary Johnson, Fire Marshal
    Karen Daines, Business Director
    Don Zavala, Board Attorney
    Sandi Schmidt, Finance Manager
    Approximately 35 Members of the Public
    On and Off Duty SFD Employees
    Tricia Greer, Recording Clerk


    A. Vote to go into Executive Session Pursuant to the following items:

    1. ARS 38-431.03(A)(3), Legal Advice – Re: Termination of DHR Contract.
    2. ARS 38-431.03(A)(7) Consultation/negotiations with representative for the possible Purchase of Real Property – Re: Sedona area property.

    Mr. Blauert began the meeting and requested adjournment at 5:30 PM into Executive Session per ARS Section 38-431.03(A)(3), Legal Advice, and ARS 38-431.03(A)(7) Consultation about the agendized items; Mr. Christensen so moved, Mrs. Erick seconded, and the motion unanimously passed.


    A. Salute to the Flag of the United States of America and Moment of Silence to Honor All American Men and Women in Service to Our Country, Firefighters, and Police Officers.

    Mr. Blauert opened the Public Session at 6:02 PM with the Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence.

    B. Items from Executive Session above:
    1. Discussion/Possible Action: Termination of Diversified Human Resources Contract.

    Chief Keller stated it is staff’s recommendation to terminate the contract with Diversified Human Resources.

    Mr. Blauert entertained a motion to support Chief Keller and staff in their decision; Mr. Christensen moved that due to non-performance of their contract, a phone call between our attorney and their attorney be placed for a mutual agreement to make the agreement null and void with no future monetary compensation; Mrs. Erick seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

    2. Discussion/Possible Action: Possible Purchase of Real Property in Sedona Area.
    Mr. Blauert said there will be no action on this item at this time.


    Doug Ayres, Village of Oak Creek: I’ve been an SFD property owner and resident for a quarter of a century. Tonight, I will attempt to educate four Board Members about the significance of three terms forming the difference between private business and government. Those unique terms are sworn duty, malfeasance, and misfeasance. When the four were sworn into office as Sedona Fire District Governing Board, their status changed significantly. The four pronounced their apparent sole goal was to reduce property taxes, thus several million dollars of district capital reserves were utilized toward that ideological goal. That goal was again proclaimed by the Chairperson in the November 2nd Sedona Red Rock News. Fulfilling an ideological political pledge does not fall into the category of sworn duty. That’s what you signed, all of you, a sworn duty. Rather providing safety and insurance security for property owners, residents, and Sedona visitors is the Board’s sworn duty, and securing adequate tax and fee revenues to do so also is a sworn duty. By refusing offers of education made by the SFD staff about how

    ~ DRAFT ~ 11/16/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 2

    fire protection, EMS, and 911 services operate, you four passed on learning your sworn duty. Rather the hugely expensive hunt for non-existent witches continues by creating an atmosphere resulting in departure of the Fire Chief, Fire Marshal, head of HR, key 911 Center staff, and other SFD personnel, a hostile work environment was created for all SFD employees. That began to veer toward potential malfeasance. The Chairperson’s demand for all e-mails of the former Fire Chief, Fire Marshal and Business Director indicates a deepening pool of ignorance. Obviously, the Chairperson does not understand it is a sworn duty of those three to respond to taxpayer questions about and to protect the vital Insurance Services Office rating, rather he has ridiculed that rating by ignoring staff and citizen committee inputs about importance of the Midway Station, a swing to malfeasance could accelerate. Between lack of that new station, personnel lost, and the hostile work environment, a reduction in ISO rating would dramatically increase insurance premiums, especially for commercial property owners. Of course, the Chairperson will read all 4,000 pages of that demanded e-mail, then apologize to all three for performing their sworn duty. Continuing the current level of Board ignorance ultimately can, and in my considerable experience, always leads to misfeasance when massive outsourcing is achieved. I urge the four of you to have Attorney Whittington elucidate for you the meaning of the now four key terms – sworn duty, malfeasance, misfeasance, and hostile work environment and the implications thereof for the taxpayers and you personally.

    Caroline Johnson, Chapel Area: From time to time, I have heard people question why when there is a 911 medical emergency call, a fire truck also responds. So, I would like to share with you something that happened to me 3 weeks ago in Phoenix. I was in the surgeon’s office having what was, for her, a routine 10-minute procedure. Following that procedure, I went to a second doctor to study more of the procedure of the first doctor and somewhere between these two doctors and transportation or whatever, I started bleeding. Dr. #2 tried for awhile to stop the bleeding and that did not happen and she bound me up and sent me back to the surgeon. The surgeon after a considerable period of time, finally managed to get the bleeding stopped. During all this, I lost a lot of blood, not enough to have a transfusion, but certainly a substantial amount. I stood up, hoping to come home, and immediately got very, very lightheaded. So, she sat me down in a chair and I passed out. My husband said it didn’t take her very long to revive me, but it was decided the best course of action was for me to go to an emergency room to see if anything more major than just my reaction to the events of the whole day. There was no way I was going to get to my husband’s car, so she called 911 for an ambulance. Like Sedona, Phoenix has an ambulance service that’s part of the fire district. So, in addition to the ambulance, one and possibly, two fire trucks arrived at the scene. They talked and decided that, yes, I should go to an emergency room and they brought in a stretcher, and asked could I walk to the stretcher. The stretcher was closer than Chief Keller is from me and I looked at it, and thought there is no way I’m ever going to get to that stretcher. So, they said they could carry me. Now, had I been sitting in this chair, 2 professional respondents could have obviously moved the table or moved the chair and moved me on to this stretcher, but I was sitting in the corner of the room, it was a very small room, there was no room to navigate, there was no room to move the chair to manipulate anything, and so, 4 professional respondents grabbed hold of various body parts and very quickly moved me on to the stretcher and went to the emergency room. I honestly do not believe that 2 people could have moved me onto that stretcher and I think that is why sometimes it is really great that there are 4 professional respondents to a medical emergency. I had never considered that before and I would like Mr. Christensen to imagine himself being unconscious lying down and would he rather have 2 professional people come to help get him onto a stretcher or 4. Thank you for listening.


    A. October 26, 2011 Business Meeting Minutes.
    B. October 26, 2011 Executive Session Minutes.

    Mr. Blauert entertained a motion to approve the October 26th Business Minutes; Mr. Christensen so moved, Mrs. Erick seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

    Mr. Blauert asked for a motion to approve the October 26th Executive Session Minutes; Mr. Christensen so moved, Mr. Montgomery provided a second, and the motion unanimously passed, 5 to 0.

    ~ DRAFT ~ 11/16/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 3


    A. Items from Staff:
    1. Purchase Order #5296 to Walker & Armstrong in the amount of $15,000 for Annual Auditing Services of Fiscal Year 2010/2011. (Finance Manager Sandi Schmidt)

    Mrs. Schmidt said this is to process payment paperwork for our auditing firm. Mr. Dible noted the change of the amount to $16,000; Mrs. Schmidt e-mailed a memo to the Board regarding this.

    Attorney Zavala said this item is not listed for possible action, and although the Agenda preamble allows action on any item, felt it would be safer to table.

    Mr. Montgomery asked if this invoice was due; Ms. Daines responded it is. Mr. Montgomery then moved to approve PO #5296 in the amount of $16,000; Mr. Christensen seconded.

    Mr. Zavala
    repeated his discomfort with action on this item. Mrs. Schmidt commented the invoice could wait. Mrs. Erick agreed with Mr. Zavala to wait.

    Upon a call for the vote, the motion failed with a vote of: Aye – Christensen and Montgomery; Nay – Blauert, Dible, and Erick.

    Mr. Blauert asked staff to inform Walker and Armstrong of the Agenda error and that this will be addressed next month.

    B. Items from Board Member Craig Dible:

    1. Discussion: Economic Outlook Conference at NAU on 11/2/11. Mr. Dible said he was invited by Chief Keller to attend an economic conference at Northern Arizona University (NAU) on November 2nd; he prepared a handout which he read aloud indicating the economic forecast was “grim”; a copy is attached with these Minutes and is on the SFD website.
    2. Discussion/Possible Action: SFD Midway (Chapel Area) Station.
    Fire Marshal Johnson indicated there were two speakers for this item.

    James Evans, Chapel Area: I want to discuss the Midway Station. In 2007, Chief Shobert assembled a committee to prioritize a 10 to 15 year program for capital projects that did not include either ambulances or engines. The final list said a Chapel Station should be built first. LEA was chosen to do the design under the direction of Chief Shobert and the Fire Board. The design was to provide maximum flexibility for future needs using durable and minimum maintenance materials such as masonry walls and a metal roof. It also included solar equipment to reduce operating costs, a design to utilize both rainwater and gray water and the installation of all utilities and landscaping plus the paving of all sidewalks, parking lots, and driveways. LEA has since offered to reduce costs by eliminating one bay, shortening the other two, reducing space where possible and eliminating solar and wastewater equipment. Most of their design, which has already been paid for, could be utilized in the revision and site work could be started this spring using primarily local contractors. The cost for the first LEA building would have raised the fire tax by $12 a year on a house assessed at $350,000. Using available funds now in the budget for construction and with the possibility of using other unspent funds, a tax increase might be avoided. If one was necessary, it would be well below the previous estimate. Mr. Dible showed me pictures of other relatively new stations that cost less than the original LEA building. They certainly looked adequate from the outside. Mr. Blauert, Chief Keller, and I talked to two architects who also felt that a new station could be built for less than the first LEA design. In none of the examples, did we receive complete information about what materials were used and what changes the present users would make to a second building, if any, and if the costs for designing the building and providing design and installation of paving, sidewalks, landscaping, and running utilities to the building were included. Obviously, this information could be obtained. In one case, the outside walls were steel or wood studs and stucco. In another, a dormitory for four people would have to be converted to individual bedrooms so Sam wouldn’t be sleeping with Suzy. Most of the other designs also used tile roofs. Therefore, I recommend that LEA be asked to revise their original design to the new specifications mentioned above. This means that the Fire Board has three questions to answer: Will a Chapel Station be started this year? Will the lower bidder be picked providing a little less room and more future maintenance? Will the higher bidder with a little more room and lower maintenance be chosen? I thank you all.

    ~ DRAFT ~ 11/16/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 4

    Karen Schmitt, Chapel Area: I live in the stationless Chapel area. Wouldn’t it be nice if the station had already been built and we didn’t have to worry about all this? It should have been built by now. Ever since the Chapel Committee presented its recommendation to the Board, I think it was two months ago, there’s been a concentrated effort to override their well-thought out, exhaustively researched decision or recommendation. First was the survey. Now it appears the Board is working behind the scenes yet again to modify or completely change the design. Since many here in the building may not have been around when the LEA station originally was presented and described, I thought it might be appropriate to review the recommendation in more detail. It was approved in August ’07 by the SFD Governing Board at the time. It was designed to be 3 bays to house some apparatus being housed at the time, at Station 4 which is Uptown because Uptown was likely to end up in a 2-bay station when it’s re-built. The award-winning design of the Chapel Station featured green technologies wherever practical, that is, natural lighting, photovoltaic panels, solar hot water, superior insulation, and water harvesting, and we all know how much energy is going to cost in the future. It was a simplified construction design, single story design, to minimize injuries from falls or trips on stairs. It included a 12-seat training room for training, CPR classes and small community events, nothing really bizarre though. It was an attractive design using natural materials to blend with and enhance surrounding properties and the community. The architect at the time cut the height of the building by 2 feet to accommodate those that complained it was too tall, which also reduced the costs by nearly a quarter of a million dollars. Given the life of a fire station is about 50 years, it is important to plan for growth of the future needs of the community. It is the height of incompetence to design a small, less ecologically harmonious building that is more costly in the long run to maintain and fails to serve the safety needs of the community for the coming years. Since the majority of this Board is now under the very likely possibility of being recalled, I would ask you to respect the on-going needs of this community we love. Accept the original recommendation of the Midway Station Committee leaving a legacy we can all be proud of for the next 50 years. Thank you.

    a. Survey of Community. (Per Board direction on 10/26/11)

    Mr. Dible stated he concluded there is a better solution which will be presented shortly. He recommended dispensing with the community survey.

    b. Alternative Design Options.

    Mr. Dible prepared a brief history of the Chapel Station as a handout, which he read aloud and is attached to these Minutes and available on the SFD website. He said in light of what he learned about the economy, he is reluctant to borrow money and raise taxes, but hopes there is another way to build the station. Mr. Blauert said he talked to Mr. Evans and asked him to look at the facts of what we have. Mr. Blauert looked at stations built lately in Arizona and met with a couple of architects. He stated in Kingman, a 5,000 square foot, 2-bay fire station was built for $400,000 including landscaping; the Assistant Chief of Kingman commented that he would never again build a dormitory instead of individual sleeping rooms for the crew, but other than that, was extremely happy with the station; although Mr. Blauert does not agree with the exterior architecture, it is easy to change for local needs and necessity. Mr. Blauert read the following proposals: 5,000 square foot footprint; no additional borrowed money; $600,000 in the current budget for a station; no increase in the taxpayer mil rate; reduced impact on the neighborhood; meets the needs of Chapel area; provides backup response for VOC and Uptown; uses existing personnel and equipment available now; “dotted line” design for potential future expansion. Mr. Blauert noted without future Forest Service trades, the Chapel area is 80% built out. Mr. Blauert then moved that Board direct Chief Keller and his staff to develop an RFQ for architectural and construction management appropriate to the Midway Station for approximately 5,000 square feet to be built for a maximum of $600,000; Mr. Dible seconded.

    Mr. Christensen said he believes we are premature with funding and would like to wait for McGladrey’s audit recommendations and the new Fire Chief. Mr. Montgomery stated he is in favor of building the station, but is concerned about the appearance of a 5,000 square foot commercial building for $600,000, and believes Chapel residents would be as well. He wants more information about the Kingman Station

    ~ DRAFT ~ 11/16/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 5

    before developing a RFQ. Mr. Blauert said information is on the Kingman website; he also talked to a Chief from Lake Havasu who built a station at a cost of about $125 per square foot. Mr. Dible said he believes an RFQ could be a good mechanism to give LEA Architects guidelines of what we want if the firm is going to re-submit. Mrs. Erick asked if “no increase in the taxpayer mil rate” was a guarantee; Mr. Blauert responded the RFQ would be designed to come within $600,000, so no extra money would be needed to build. Mrs. Erick remarked that Ms. Daines said in order to sustain what we have after going through the reserves, the mil rate must go to $1.90, and asked what would happen when a station is added to that. Ms. Daines replied she did not say the mil rate must go up to $1.90, but rather, presented assessed valuation forecasts with various projections and $1.90 was a number that could guarantee, from a conservative standpoint, maintaining existing service levels for the next five years; she said some level of increase to the mil rate must occur in order to sustain existing services, personnel, staffing, and stations; Ms. Daines said at $1.40, unequivocally, SFD will not be able to staff a Chapel Station.

    Mr. Blauert asked if he misunderstood that the staffing is already in place; Chief Keller said presently we have it. Ms. Daines added that at $1.40 with next year’s assessed values, there will not be enough funding to maintain existing staffing. Mr. Blauert confirmed, however, that we have the equipment and Chief Keller said, “We do”. Chief Keller said to do current operations at existing levels, we will use approximately $2.5 million this year and will have about $2.5 million in the bank at the end of this fiscal year; if we hold the mil rate at $1.40 and maintain all stations and staffing, those reserves will be used up next fiscal year, and after that, the following fiscal year, SFD will be “broke”.

    Chief Keller asked for and received permission from Chairman Blauert to discuss the proposed station. He appreciated Mr. Dible’s comments about the Midway Station history, but found some of his facts, while accurate, lacking in other points of view; for example, the 55 signatures gathered by Mark Casper included residents from VOC. Chief Keller pointed out that Karen Schmitt gathered more than 300 Chapel area residents’ signatures on a petition supporting the proposed station. He believes staff has tried to work with the previous and current Boards to do the best thing for the community and has come to the conclusion that life is about compromise. He said this Board’s and the previous one’s actions have been correct and they have done the very best with the information they had at the time; certainly, the current economic situation requires adapting and dealing through compromise. Chief Keller said supporting a tax-efficient operation is an absolute must under these economic circumstances, but there are other standards such as response time, staffing, NFPA 1710 four and eight minute response time that are also correct. He said the standards of safety to which the district tries to adhere to protect our firefighters and the public are also correct assumptions and somewhere in the “middle” is the truth. Chief Keller said the original Chapel Station of about 9,000 square feet came in at $2.8 million and someone said that cost $300 per square foot, but he disagrees because that included parking lots, road surfaces, ramps, tearing into the sidewalk, curb, and gutter of the highway for ingress/egress, reinforcing the asphalt parking lot of the Jewish Community Center to support the weight of fire trucks because they graciously granted an easement to the station; he said landscaping and water retention are not part of the building, but yet, were covered in the $2.8 million figure. He applauds Mr. Blauert’s efforts to try to get a station built because it has been proven to be needed and at some point, will become a point of liability if nothing is done.

    Chief Keller said he finds it ironic to haggle over $1 million because he believes the station should be in the $1.5 million range and stated that $600,000 would build a stucco, tile-roofed, wood-framed building that will not stand up over time; this will require someone else to pay for our mistakes in the future. He has been in contact with LEA Architects this week to try to revise the floor plan and they have sketched a plan incorporating the original floor plan scaled back in the number and size of rooms with 2 apparatus bays for an engine and ambulance in 6,000 square feet. Chief Keller said LEA told him that Tolleson built a wood frame station 16 years ago and 2 years ago, that building was razed and re-built because it did not perform over time. He said the architects they met with this week are qualified and he respects the opinion of the Board to do what they feel is best, but is only expressing his opinion that the station be designed to withstand natural disasters, so that first responders are not hindered in response to those that

    ~ DRAFT ~ 11/16/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 6

    need services. He said he also finds it ironic to balk at spending $1 million when Sedona spent $600,000 to build tennis courts at the high school; he said the City of Sedona wants to spend $2.5 million to build wetlands and a bird sanctuary at the sewer treatment plant; and $16 million expended to build the Performing Arts Center; he is not saying those were wrong, but is using those figures as a matter of perspective. Chief Keller said SFD is asking to put a fire station in the Chapel area to save lives and protect property and the Board has acknowledged that needs to happen; he believes it is time to compromise and $600,000 is an inadequate amount for the building, parking lots, landscaping, ramps, road cut, and utilities. Chief Keller asked the Board to consider spending about $1.5 million to work with LEA Architects to salvage the design to have ready in 40 to 60 days allowing SFD to secure a permit in February to break ground and expend the $600,000 this year and, perhaps, finance or use an alternative form of funding for the balance. He then thanked the Board for its attention.

    Mr. Blauert stated his appreciation for Chief Keller’s remarks. He said the cost of the Kingman station included the parking area, landscaping, and all furniture, fixtures, and equipment; Mr. Blauert asked Chief Keller to remember during conversation with one of the architects that it was not his request for a wood frame, especially in the bays. He said he is proposing a building for the welfare of the people, and again, we are “haggling” over dollars. Mr. Blauert stated there is a motion and second on the floor for an RFQ and if LEA wants to participate, they could submit a proposal. He asked if there was any other discussion.

    Mr. Montgomery commented in looking at building industrial commercial structures, we should consider a 15 year building versus a 50 year building and does not believe $600,000 is the correct solution, as he does not believe a $600,000 station is going to fit into the neighborhood. Mr. Dible asked if there was room for an amendment to the $600,000; Mr. Blauert stated if Mr. Dible wants to amend it, he would recognize it. Mr. Dible asked if there could be a compromise at $1 million. Chief Keller said he has only talked to LEA about the floor plan and looking at doing preliminary elevations based on that revision; he said their experience is based on what they are seeing for the most recent construction cost for a fire station in the Phoenix area at about $200 per square foot; he asked them to remember that is not just for the building but includes engineering, water retention, underground culverts, etc. and the big advantage in going with LEA is we already have their civil and structural engineering which can be largely salvaged. Chief Keller commented a 6,000 square foot station at $200 per sq. ft. would be about $1.2 million, and potentially, could be less. Mr. Dible said the Glenwood Springs station looked nice and at 5,000 square feet cost $1 million. Chief Keller said the other concern he has is the Kingman station was built in 1998 for $400,000 and there could be an inflationary factor at today’s dollars that is, probably, more than $600,000. He asked the Board for guidance so he does not have to talk to so many different architects looking for a solution; he feels the solution is probably not $600,000 and, certainly, not $2.8 million, but is rather, a compromise “somewhere in the middle”. Mr. Dible said the Glenwood Springs station used natural vegetation; Chief Keller agreed but said there would be some necessary planting. Mr. Dible said the Glenwood Springs station is his “reference point” and was $1 million.
    Ms. Daines commented the $600,000 is appropriated for this year, and using the previous design costs for construction documents of $250,000, would only leave $350,000 for construction after going back out for architectural services. Chief Keller said he does not know what other architects would charge for design, but it would be a figure that reduces the $600,000. Mr. Blauert commented he has been in construction for 40 years and anything over 6% for architecture is “shame on you”. Mr. Christensen said the Chapel Station has been in the long-term plan and asked what is the plan to improve the Uptown Station or re-build it. Chief Keller deferred to the list of projects the Citizens Committee created several years ago where the Chapel Station ended at the top of the list, and Station 4 was also on the list to re-build at some point, but since it is currently functioning, we do not have response time issues from Uptown; we do from the Chapel area and back-up for the VOC. Chief Keller said the reason SFD backed off from a bond was not to be in competition with the Sedona-Oak Creek School District, which, at that time, was floating a $73 million bond; he acknowledged the best way to approach multiple building projects is bonding, but

    ~ DRAFT ~ 11/16/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 7

    for a single project, it is not cost effective. Mr. Christensen asked why SFD does not try to go for a bond for all the projects and he believes it is the answer; Chief Keller said that is for Board consideration.

    Mr. Blauert
    used the Bank of America building in Sedona as a reference for wood frame construction that has lasted 30 years and will last another 30 years; he knows this because he owns the building; so, he does not believe a frame building only has a 15 year life. He stated he wants to help the Chapel Station become a reality and the architectural design is strictly what is called “outside finish” to complement the community. Mr. Dible asked if Mr. Blauert would accept an amendment to his motion to $1 million and Mr. Blauert agreed; Mr. Montgomery provided the second to the amendment. Upon voting, the motion failed, as follows: Aye: Dible and Montgomery; Nay: Blauert, Christensen, Erick.

    Mr. Christensen again said the most logical way to get all the construction projects done is to bond and that has been his proposal for three years. Mr. Blauert said if we need to increase the amount of money to build the Chapel Station, he concurs with Mr. Christensen, but does not want to be talking about this in six months and still have no future for a Chapel Station.

    C. Items from Board Member Phyllis Erick:

    1. Discussion/Possible Action: Fire Chief Search Committee Items.

    a. Request to Board for Outside Legal Representation for Fire Chief Committee and Agreement for Outside Counsel between SFD and Ridenour, Hienton & Lewis.
    Mr. Blauert announced this item has been pulled from the Agenda. Fire Marshal Johnson stated three individuals wish to speak, as follows:

    Wendy Tanzer, VOC: Since the item has been pulled, I think most of this is a moot point, but I’ll give it to you anyway. It is impossible for me to comprehend the need for or expense of outside legal representation for any sub-committee appointed by this Governing Board. Certainly, this has never before occurred in any previous Chief’s selection process, nor should it be necessary or permitted at this time. The fact that $5,000 has already been squandered or invested depending upon your perspective is enough. But, because of committee member Ray LeRoy’s generosity in yesterday’s Selection Committee meeting, attendees were given enough information to reach an understanding of the frustrations members of this Selection Committee are currently facing. There is a difference between satisfying legal requirements versus lessons in grammar and punctuation and meeting EEOC standards versus subjective opinions on the description of Sedona’s landscape. I genuinely sympathize with what I’m sure is the confusion and misdirection such lack of definition causes. Perhaps, that should be addressed directly with Board counsel. Committee member Brent Johnson’s letter read into yesterday’s meeting Minutes makes several excellent points and while you cannot go back and correct that which has already transpired, you do have the opportunity to go forward in a productive and positive manner. With two vacancies on the Selection Committee and now two Co-Chairmen, this is an excellent time to include members from SFD Human Resources and forego unnecessary independent legal representation. On tonight’s Agenda is the request for Board approval of several documents with regard to hiring a new Chief. Please allow me to re-state, for Board approval. That is the correct and appropriate procedure with moving forward with all projects, not just the Chief Selection process. Honest differences of opinion can be addressed within the scope of the Board sub-committee relationship and should be resolved in accordance with Statute, parliamentary rule and Board authority. The perception that has been created is one of an adversarial relationship between the Governing Board and members of the Selection Committee. How can that be? It is, always has been, and should forever remain a subordinate relationship. The sub-committee is accountable to the Board. Not the other way around. If members of the Governing Board hold that rightful position, no independent legal representation will be authorized now or in the future. Wrong is wrong. This in-fighting is costly by every definition of the term. Do not allow this process to become an unnecessarily protracted nightmare. The time has come to assert control and move forward. Thank you.

    Thomas Purcel, West Sedona: I’m on the Fire Chief Selection Search Committee and there seem to be some ambiguities and some misconceptions. The members of the Committee haven’t sought legal review.

    ~ DRAFT ~ 11/16/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 8

    All the resources we looked at were supposedly vetted and I have no reason to doubt that they have been vetted. We’ve looked at other fire districts, larger districts; we’ve looked at Sedona’s district. Again, these have been vetted. The Board talked about the expenses on legal review before for themselves and I think there’s a misconception that if you get legal review, there’s an umbrella of protection. There is not any umbrella of protection until something is challenged and you go to court. You can have all the legal opinions you want, but that doesn’t give you this protection. So, that’s why we looked at things that were vetted and we took the best of what was out there. We put in a lot of hard work, we gave it a lot of effort, and I think the process is going to be just a terrific process. Thank you very much for your time.

    Karen Schmitt, Chapel Area: First, I want to thank Chief Keller for his eloquence trying to save the Chapel Station. We all appreciate that, Terry. I want to read a letter. I attended the Chief’s Selection committee yesterday and I want to read a letter from Brent Johnson because he could not attend. He’s the firefighter that’s on that committee and he had to work yesterday. He sent this and I thought it was really eloquent, too. She then aloud, as follows: Hello all, Unfortunately, due to staffing restraints I will be unable to attend the meeting today, however, I did have a few points to mention. I am concerned about the direction of this committee with regards to its recent past. I would like to mention that the circumstances surrounding the legal issues with our current documentation are a fine example of the problems I warned that we would be facing if we did not have someone from Human Resources serving as a member of this committee. I insisted that there were legal ramifications to the processes we undertook, but my input was disregarded and ignored. Now we have come full circle. We have, indeed, suffered as a committee due to this oversight. We have been inactive for approximately two months, delayed the hiring process, and incurred legal expenses that have never been incurred in any previous hiring process to date. We currently are slated to run a hiring process for the budgeted amount of $15,000.00. I am concerned that our community’s tax dollars are being spent to fix legal issues with documentation that has been rendered by this committee. These are expenses that could have been avoided should we have allowed HR personnel to serve as a part of this committee as I had suggested since the very first meeting. I propose that we make a change to bring existing HR personnel onto this committee so that we can avoid issues of this nature from occurring again in the future. This process is only in its beginning phases. We will need the diligence HR personnel can afford us for all the tasks still ahead of us. I am also concerned that we have no defined criteria or costs for the assessment center. I am told that as of September alone we have spent over $5,000.00 in legal expenses in this committee. This is something that has never been done before in a committee of this kind. Considering that we still need to advertise and put on an assessment center, I am concerned that we will be out of our allotted budget dollars for hiring a fire chief. Now I understand that is a proposal to contract with another lawyer for this committee, which will cost our community more tax dollars in what I consider to be gross and unnecessary legal fees. I am uninterested in paying more lawyers with our community’s tax dollars. I am interested in moving forward in a fiscally responsible fashion. I propose to get HR included as members of this committee and start moving forward in the right direction. Mrs. Schmitt stated she fully agrees with Firefighter Johnson.

    b. Board Approval of Fire Chief Search Committee Documents: Fire Chief’s Job Description; Fire Chief’s Job Application; Fire Chief’s Advertisement.

    Mrs. Erick moved to approve the Fire Chief Search Committee documents of the Fire Chief’s Job Description; Fire Chief’s Job Application; and Fire Chief’s advertisement. Mr. Christensen seconded. Discussion opened with Mr. Montgomery asking if these were reviewed by HR or legal; Mrs. Erick replied “Yes”. Mr. Montgomery asked about the salary range for Fire Chief and Mrs. Erick said that has not been decided and would be discussed tonight for Board approval. Mr. Montgomery asked who Palmer Investigative Services is; Mrs. Erick said that would be brought to the Board at a later date for approval. Mr. Dible said at the time, we still had DHR and they reviewed the documents, as well. Ms. Daines concurred that DHR looked at the documents and one of their concerns was the timeline on the process and there are still issues with having a postmark rather than a “received by” deadline, as well as starting to do interviews on January 3rd; this is because the “postmark” deadline of December 31st is a Saturday, the 1st is a Sunday, and the 2nd is the New Year’s Day holiday with no mail; she said, potentially, you could

    ~ DRAFT ~ 11/16/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 9

    have applications from qualified candidates that do not arrive until the 5th or 6th when interviews are already started; she said this could raise questions. Mrs. Erick asked Attorney Zavala if he looked at those dates. Mr. Zavala said he has not seen the new proposed dates. Mrs. Erick said the packets she handed out yesterday to the Committee were from Mr. Zavala’s office; he said that is correct, but he has not seen the revised dates. Ms. Daines commented the documents vetted by Mr. Zavala were the job description, job application, and advertisement, but not the hiring process and tentative dates. Mr. Dible suggested the deadline for applications be changed to “received by” and not “postmarked by”.

    Ms. Daines clarified that the advertisement includes the salary scale and if the Board approves the previous motion, but does not agree with the listed salary scale, they would have to re-do the motion and approval of the advertisement. Mr. Zavala said the current motion could be approving the documents subject to further salary modifications as may be appropriate by the Board, and suggested they could split out the advertisement and wait until after the salary discussion to vote on that. Mr. Zavala said the dates could be modified tonight or could be assigned to the committee. Mrs. Erick called upon the Committee Chairman Joe Demme. Chief Keller asked for and received permission from Mr. Blauert for Committee Member Firefighter Brent Johnson to speak. Mr. Dible asked Mrs. Erick if the received by date for applications could be changed to Thursday, 12/29/11; she and Mr. Demme agreed.

    Mrs. Erick amended her previous motion for the Board to approve the Fire Chief Search Committee documents including Fire Chief Job Description and Job Application; Mr. Christensen seconded the amended motion. Upon calling for the vote, the motion unanimously passed at 5 to 0.

    c. Fire Chief’s Hiring Process and Tentative Dates.

    Mrs. Erick moved to have the Hiring Process and Tentative Dates with the aforementioned changes approved, Mr. Christensen seconded, and the motion unanimously passed at 5 to 0.

    d. Fire Chief’s Salary.

    Mrs. Erick asked for discussion regarding the Fire Chief’s salary. Mr. Demme said the salary was discussed with Mr. Zavala in a telephone conversation and there was no objection to the range proposed. Mr. Zavala said the Board approves the range. Ms. Daines stated the proposed range for Fire Chief is 23% higher at the starting salary and 15% higher at the top than the existing salary range; she said when our organization sets salary ranges for positions, there is a system to benchmark with “like” organizations to make sure we are industry competitive; she said this would put SFD at the top for the Chief’s range and disrupt the system of internal equity we try to maintain between ranks of positions; this range potentially puts a $40,000 a year gap between Fire Chief and the next lower level; this does not maintain internal equity and parity between salary scales which is part of establishing an organizational salary structure. Mr. Demme replied they spoke with a number of departments around the State regarding salary ranges of Fire Chiefs and the range seems to be between $120,000 to $150,000 for an individual that would be qualified for this district; he said in the job description, they are asking for an individual with exceptional characteristics and talents and in order to get that individual, we will have to pay a little more than in the past, although he understands Ms. Daines’ point. She replied it seems ironic since there has been much public scrutiny over the level of SFD employee salaries, but now, we are going to increase the range of Fire Chief by 23% and, possibly, have to decrease other salaries next year in order to balance the budget.

    Mr. Demme replied this position would be able to change the structure of this district and probably a good individual with a real understanding of how to make this district work better may be able to bring down the budget and add real insight as to how to cut a number of areas to actually come in line with what is necessary in today’s economy. He said they are looking for a person that can really handle the budget items without decreasing service in this district and finding a way to bring down costs, and if we have to pay more money for that individual, he is all for it. Ms. Daines commented SFD has many extremely talented, well-educated, well-qualified individuals that make up this organization, not just that one person and those individuals have had no merit increases, no COLAs, no salary adjustments, and decreases to their benefits over the last few years, and to now bump the Chief’s salary up 23% over existing salary

    ~ DRAFT ~ 11/16/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 10

    levels will be problematic for the morale of the organization. Mr. Demme said we need real leadership and he has been in business for 40 years and looks to leadership, and said corporations and other municipalities and districts are willing to pay a higher salary to bring in an individual that can help put an organization back on the right track. Mr. Dible asked what the current Fire Chief salary range is; Ms. Daines stated she believes it is starts around $97,000 to $130,000. Mrs. Erick pointed out the Committee did not say the individual would be hired at the top of the proposed range. Mr. Dible asked Mr. Demme if his committee felt the proposed salary was competitive for the quality and expertise being sought; Mr. Demme replied, “I believe so.” Mrs. Erick stated it is the ultimate decision of the Board when a Chief is hired and this is just a suggested range. Mr. Blauert asked if Mr. Demme had researched any of the disparity between staff salaries at other districts and Mr. Demme said he had not.

    Chief Keller asked if Firefighter Brent Johnson could present his comments. Mr. Demme stated Firefighter Johnson’s statements were read into the Committee meeting’s Minutes yesterday and repeated today by an individual and he sees no reason why we should listen to his comments again; Mr. Montgomery commented Firefighter Johnson is on the Committee. An audience member made a remark and Mrs. Erick told him that if he could not abide by the rules, he should leave; Mr. Christensen agreed.

    Firefighter Johnson read the following prepared statement: Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I’m here to speak as a Committee Member for the Fire Chief Search Committee. Since the onset of this committee approximately four months ago, we have put the lion’s share of our efforts into re-writing existing documents pertinent to the Fire Chief hiring process. I expressed concern as to why we were re-inventing this documentation, rather than simply revising existing documents when necessary. An inordinate amount of time, effort, and money has been placed on this endeavor and previous year’s fire district HR personnel, in cooperation with members of the community, created the original documents with zero cost in legal fees because our HR department knew the legal issues surrounding the development of such documents. Since the first meeting as a member of this committee, I expressed that I wanted HR to be a part of this process since this is their job and they are aware of the legal caveats involved in such a process. I was denied this by the Chairman of the Committee, Joe Demme, as well as being denied the right to have our members of the fire district with experience in this type of hiring process to join the committee. Mr. Demme told me that an attorney told him it was inappropriate for any member of the fire district to serve on this committee. I have documents from an attorney and an HR Specialist stating that it is the normal course of district business for staff to participate in hiring processes. It is not hard to understand that if members of HR had been part of this committee as I had asked, we would not be in our current situation. For the last two months, the committee has been at a standstill for reasons that have never been expressed or explained to me. Yesterday, we had the first public meeting since the onset of the unexplained two month sabbatical. During this meeting, the legal problems with the documentation were downplayed by Mr. Demme when, indeed, there were many legal issues with the documentation that I know certain members of the Fire Board are well aware of. According to the records provided to me by the Administration, over $5,000 of legal fees have been charged to the fire district for repairs made to this documentation. After looking into what is budgeted for this year’s Fire Chief hiring process, we only have $15,000 allotted for this entire line item. Yesterday, during the committee meeting, I again submitted a request to Mr. Demme to include HR personnel in the Committee in light of everything that has transpired to date. Again, Mr. Demme refused to allow HR personnel to serve on this Committee. Despite everything that has happened and the obvious need for such personnel. Instead, I understand that Mr. Demme is seeking now to ask for the Board to give further legal assistance, so we can expect to see yet more bills paid for by tax dollars for the process that has historically been zero legal expenses. Furthermore, I will add that the committee never met officially to discuss requesting outside legal counsel, yet Mr. Demme has submitted a letter of request to the Fire Board which states, it is – in quotations – at the request of the Fire Chief Search Committee – end quotations. He also suggested in the Minutes of yesterday’s meeting that this item was discussed at the last committee meeting. I can tell you that it was not discussed during the previous meeting. So, if he has a recollection of speaking about it at a meeting, all I can say is that it was not an official meeting, it was

    ~ DRAFT ~ 11/16/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 11

    not an open meeting, and I was not invited. I feel at this time as though I have done all I can as a member of this committee to assure the success of this hiring process. I need your help to bring sanity and fiscal responsibility back to this committee with sound leadership. I would ask today that the Board remove Joe Demme from the committee, take measures to allow HR personnel to put a stop to the unnecessary legal expenditures. Mr. Blauert asked Firefighter Johnson to stop speaking; Firefighter Johnson replied he feels the committee needs new leadership; he then thanked the Board for their time.

    Mr. Blauert commented that Attorney Zavala said there was nothing unusual to review, just like any other contract we have done and although they may be condemned for legal costs, the legal review was requested at last month’s meeting by Mr. Montgomery. Mrs. Erick stated she takes offense at Mr. Johnson suggesting Mr. Demme be removed from the committee and wanted to make sure that was in the Minutes. Mr. Christensen said this committee was selected; if there are any comments, they should proceed through Mr. Demme to Mrs. Erick, the Board Member in charge of this committee and if there is valid reason, it should then come to the Board. Mr. Zavala directed the Board’s attention to the salary issue. Mr. Dible commented his analysis of legal bills from the last Board meeting showed $3,728.50 spent for this item, but it is now being said $5,000 was spent; Ms. Daines said her figure was closer to $5,000 because there were items that came out of Mr. Zavala’s review, specifically, questions pertaining to the Veteran’s preference points and how that relates to Arizona Revised Statutes in our classification, which were probably not included in the figures Mr. Dible analyzed; Ms. Daines said she would provide the itemized bills for the Board showing the breakdown of expenses; Mrs. Erick replied it would be nice for the Board to receive those figures since Firefighter Johnson has them. Mr. Dible said as far as he is aware, all the documents were reviewed as of September 30th.

    Mrs. Erick then moved to approve the range of the Fire Chief’s salary of $120,000 to $150,000; Mr. Christensen seconded. In discussion, Mr. Montgomery said he does not understand why the salary range is being increased, although he understands Mr. Demme’s comments about the reason; however, with what has been going on with the district, he does not necessarily agree; he also does not appreciate the “palpable animosity” between Mr. Demme, members of the Board and committee, and remarked that the whole process has been one of excluding staff, the department, and the public, and in his opinion is a thinly veiled attempt to hire a “hatchet man”. Mrs. Erick said the attempt was to not allow the district to hire its own Chief. Mr. Montgomery stated he believes the salary range should remain the same as now. Mr. Christensen said he agreed. Mrs. Erick then amended her motion to accept the Fire Chief salary range from $97,000 to $140,000; Mr. Christensen seconded the amended motion. Upon calling for the vote, the motion was unanimously approved at 5 to 0.

    Mrs. Erick then moved for the Board to approve the Fire Chief’s advertisement with the changes in the salary range; Mr. Christensen seconded, and the motion was unanimously approved at 5 to 0.

    D. Item from Board Member Ty Montgomery:
    1. Monthly Update: Current Fees to Date for Legal Services Provided to SFD.
    Mr. Montgomery said Mr. Whittington’s bill for last month was about $5,200, but he has not seen the other firms’; Ms. Daines said since this meeting is being held on the third instead of the fourth Wednesday of the month, SFD has not yet received other invoices, if there are any.

    E. Items from Board Chairman David Blauert:
    1. Discussion/Possible Action: Board Policy #2011-02, Legal Assistance. (Revised per Board direction on 10/26/11)
    Mr. Blauert asked if everyone had read the redline of this revised Policy and the Board had; he then entertained a motion to approve Board Policy #2011-02; Mr. Montgomery so moved, Mr. Christensen seconded, and the motion unanimously passed at 5 to 0.

    2. Discussion/Possible Action: Board Policy #2011-03, Contract Authorization. (Tabled from 10/26/11)

    ~ DRAFT ~ 11/16/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 12

    As the Policy has not yet been forwarded to the Board, Mr. Blauert asked this item be tabled.

    3. Discussion/Possible Action: Revised Resolution Establishing Standards by which Services may be Contracted to Private Parties by the SFD. (Tabled from 10/26/11)

    The following individual requested to speak on this item:

    Douglas Ayres, VOC: Since I’m the one that provided this originally, suggested it to the Board, I’m making myself available for education and explanation and answering questions, since I have some experience and expertise in how this works and as I mentioned to the attorney a minute ago, he’s going to tell Mr. Whittington that I had to evade his request that I divulge certain cities and counties that had participated in this because all the activity that took place in Executive Sessions. I have since remembered one that I can speak of, if you have any questions.

    Mr. Blauert commented the subject would have had to be discussed in Public Session to be recognized by a vote. Mr. Ayres stated, no, because they went to litigation. He then said: I have hired, supervised, and set the salaries of more Fire Chiefs than all of you have met in your lifetime. I have reviewed and been aware of and worked with probably 300 Fire Chiefs. I know quality when I see it. You would save yourselves a lot of grief, money, time, and public confusion were you to just shortcut the process and appoint him (Note: He pointed at Chief Keller.) because he is as high quality as I have ever seen in my 50 years working in that field.

    Chief Keller said Mr. Whittington created lists of items from the Resolution that could be used by the fire district and those that are not applicable; he said he received an e-mail from Mr. Whittington’s office this afternoon enumerating those and he and staff would continue to study the process and, possibly, create a draft Resolution for the Board’s review. Mr. Blauert agreed. Mr. Dible asked if that was in response to the November 3rd letter Chief Keller sent to Mr. Whittington and Chief Keller replied, “Yes”.

    4. Update: Status Report on Performance, Cost, and Management Audit of the Sedona Fire District by RSM-McGladrey.

    Mr. Blauert stated McGladrey has no findings to report, but compliment SFD’s staff and the support they are receiving to find necessary information for the report. He is frustrated at the lack of information to report to the Board at this time.


    A. Monthly Staff Report – Fire Chief Terry Keller.

    Chief Keller reported the following: He introduced Assistant Chief Mary Dalton from Central Yavapai Fire District in Prescott Valley attending tonight and explained she is the “Karen Daines” of Central Yavapai. He said he and Fire Marshal Johnson attended a Yavapai County-wide Fire Chiefs meeting that Chief Dalton facilitated with about 50 other Chief officers to look for partnering opportunities to share costs and ideas. Sedona is one of the larger organizations in the county and shares similarities with Central Yavapai and will bring ideas to the Board as they present themselves to shave costs and share resources. Call statistics since the last Fire Board meeting three weeks ago have been 207 calls including 23 fire calls, 120 EMS, 33 special duty, and 31 interfacility transports. McGladrey representatives were on-site at Station 1 last week and kept staff busy with requests. The week before that, representatives from the auditing firm, Walker and Armstrong, were on-site for our annual statutorily required audit. Staff has been very busy trying to get information and fulfill requests from both auditing firms. Additionally, he reported the McGladrey survey of SFD staff was sent last week, and thus far, approximately a 50% response has been received; SFD staff has some trepidation about responding, but management is encouraging them to be forthright in survey responses. He reminded the Board of the previously-discussed December 8th Public Budget Workshop kick-off. Ending on a positive note regarding economics, he attended the conference at NAU that Mr. Dible discussed previously, which was rather depressing in many ways. Chief Keller studied Economics at NAU and commented there are many economic theories but in reality, none of them work; he said what works is optimism and people have to believe things will get better and they will. Chief Keller

    ~ DRAFT ~ 11/16/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 13

    said pessimism will always lose; the study of economics gives one a perspective of weighing issues for whether or not they have utility; he recommended we all approach life optimistically about things having value and utility including “good, old SFD”. He pointed out there is some economic growth at 2 to 2.5% and although sluggish, it is positive compared to negative growth. He also stated economists predict there will be no “double dip” recession and asked all to focus on the positive and hope for better times in the future. He thanked the Board for its attention.

    B. October Financial Report.

    There were no comments or questions regarding the Financial Report.

    C. Fire Marshal’s Safety Message.

    Fire Marshal Johnson said next week is Thanksgiving and asked everyone to be safety conscious and not leave food cooking unattended because what may happen “when you get back from the store” is to have a bunch of “hungry” firefighters waiting for you.


    The meeting adjourned at 8:30 PM.
    Charles Christensen, Clerk of the Board

  3. Keepin' it Honest says:

    And the saga continues…

    Concerned Citizen
    Sedona, AZ

Leave a Reply

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