By Shelley Evans
Sedona, AZ: Back to basics! Sedona’s stability lies in the proven State formula for accounting.
It is a method of accounting designed to protect the people from mismanagement and misuse of funds. I see it referred to by those we handed over our power to as “old” or “archaic,” but numbers and accounting are constant.
So, what is this Home Rule that demands our attention right now? Why do I believe it is the most important item on the ballot this August?
Home Rule is the nickname for a much less cozy term, Alternative Expenditure Limitation.
The State Formula is known as the State Expenditure Limitation. The intent of this “limitation” is to limit the power of our local government.
Under the State Formula, the PEOPLE RULE.
Sedona, though, voted to give away the power of their “voice and vote” to Home Rule. That’s right, under Home Rule we gave away our checkbook and our credit cards to the City Council and City Manager with no need for additional consent to spend, spend, spend without any transparent accountability.
The good news is, we can change that August 2nd by voting NO on Home Rule.
Now to take back our voice and choice on the future of Sedona, we must also take back the power we gave away: free reign on the checkbook, the power of taxation, pet project funding, corporate partnerships and handing out no-bid contracts to whomever they choose.
You bet the Sedona Bureaucrats and their Partners are going to fight to maintain that control.
I began a series of workshops with Donna Joy Varney and a volunteer group of other Sedonans designed to offer a broader perspective on Home Rule.
Vice Mayor Scott Jablow and Councilor Jessica Williamson decided to join us and they videotaped the presentation, as well as the discussion and questions that followed.
We must admit we were a bit disappointed that they provided no insights or feedback and posed no questions that might have benefited those in attendance. Now here we are addressing the points that didn’t set well with the councilors. They posted their concerns on Sedona.Biz and many social media outlets.
S&J’s POINT ONE: If home rule is not approved, the state-mandated limit on how much the city could spend in a year would be $13.7 million. An additional $16 million of spending would be allowed, but it would be limited to debt service, HURF highway funds, grants.
The City would have $13.7 million available to spend on police, parks and recreation, infrastructure, traffic improvements, transit, code enforcement, permit review, and other city services.
The sewer treatment plant is budgeted for over $5 million for next year, bringing the available funds for the rest of the city operations to about $8 million. Funding for the police department alone is tentatively set at about $8 million for next year.
RESPONSE: Once we vote NO on Home Rule, the numbers outlined are a good start in showing how the community and the City Council can dialogue and work together to determine a budget that properly supports Sedona’s infrastructure and a quality lifestyle for the residents.
A healthy community requires engaged residents – people with a voice and a vote on what is important in their community. A NO vote on Home Rule allows a choice to utilize a one-time annual override or to choose a Permanent Base Adjustment if the City Council determines additional funds are needed to operate effectively. Both give the people a say on how much can be spent and it behooves the council members to be transparent on where they intend to spend the money.
With ample communication and information, such as provided in Williamson’s OpEd, it would be sure to generate voter support for an additional $5 million for the Sewer treatment plant and, with a bit more information, possibly even $8-10 million more to ensure our police department is fully funded and even expanded, as needed.
Make sure to do your due diligence on lining out the numbers and communicating with the people prior to election day. Trim the fat and take it a step or two at a time. Jumping a budget from $62 million to $112 million in a year more than likely wouldn’t pass voter approval.
S&J’s POINT TWO: It was alleged in the presentation that residents don’t have the numbers and the information about projects and programs before Council meets to vote on them.
The Council agenda and the complete information packet — which includes all the numbers that will be discussed — is posted on line at the same time that the Council receives the information, typically the Wednesday before the Tuesday meeting. Every resident has access to the same information the Council has at the same time we do.
RESPONSE: Wow… you decide on a $112,000,000.00 budget for Sedona with less than one week to decipher and research the items within it. That is not ample time for the public, or for our council members to dive into those figures.
When you say, “includes all of the numbers that will be discussed,” we would like to know what numbers are merely not discussed.
Doesn’t every single council person though have a one-on-one meeting prior to that date with the City Manager for her to guide you through the proposed budget? With less than a week to decipher those numbers, that gives the opinion of the City Manager a lot of clout and sway.
S&J’s POINT THREE: It was alleged that Sedona doesn’t have to listen to the people for a vote because the population fell under 10,000.
State law has no provision for referring a community plan to a vote for cities with populations below 10,000.
RESPONSE: Actually, this wasn’t an “allegation” at all. It was sharing an experience on social media as to the attitude of a certain council member once Sedona dropped below 10,000 in population.
When she didn’t like complaints that were being made, she was quick to say that the City Council no longer “had” to listen to the people by law because Sedona’s population was now below 10,000.
Not a good PR stunt to make seemingly snide comments on social media, true or not. It seeds the idea and feeds the feeling that there is an agenda to drive our population down just for such a reason.
S&J’s POINT FOUR-A: It was alleged that employees set their own spending limits and that City staff has free hand with little or no accountability.
Staff prepares a draft budget for the Council’s consideration. They don’t set anything.
The Council spends two full days going through the budget line by line, asking staff detailed questions about each item. Council makes the decisions, not staff. Staff is not in charge.
RESPONSE: This is not what was alleged.
and they prepare a draft to present to the City Council for consideration.
This definitely controls the direction the city takes regardless of what is approved or altered. Again, we must raise the concern here that a multimillion-dollar budget is decided in just two days with less than one week to look over the numbers. The City Manager is given much-to-much trust and leeway with this type of procedure.
S&J’s POINT FOUR-B: Sedona’s population declined while the proposed number of staff increased.
The City is developing a number of ambitious programs to meet priority and community plan goals. Those programs don’t run themselves, nor do contracts manage themselves. Staff are required, and the budget reflects that.
RESPONSE: “Ambitious programs” is perhaps a good descriptor, “community plan goals” would perhaps be better slated as “City Agenda Projects.”
S&J’s POINT FIVE: It was alleged that City small grants are given with no process. Donna Joy said she doesn’t know why the City gives grants. She alleged that grants are supposed to be seed money and said that organizations should not get repeat grants.
RESPONSE: Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to clarify this point. The small grants are not what was referenced at all. The comment and context pertained to organizations with more than one million dollars in revenue and longevity and, after years of grant funding, are now making a hefty profit. These organizations are quite successful and should be able to fully fund themselves.
Those monies would be better spent on assisting businesses in need.
S&J’s POINT SIX: It was alleged that the City needs to follow standards about number of staff per resident and that Sedona has many more staff than the standard.
This ignores the over 3 million visitors that come to Sedona a year that use our services and our infrastructure. I am not aware of any standard that applies to Sedona’s situation.
RESPONSE: We stand by our evaluation that the community needs and city staffing is out of balance. City employees grew by 44 percent while our population declined.
The numbers used for comparison is a standard industry unit of measure with a wide range, and Sedona’s population/employee ratio is far outside that range. Let’s do a comparison chart.
SEDONA FLAGSTAFF
EMPLOYEE/RESIDENT RATIO 1/59 1/116
INDUSTRY STANDARD 1/95 1/112
It is also apparent that the public/private contract with the Chamber of Commerce is largely overseeing tourism right now and the city is paying for Chamber employees as well that are not calculated in actual city employees; thus, skewing the calculations even further.
Flagstaff is better than industry standards and tourism is their largest industry according to its city website. They also have their own in-city office of tourism and do not contract it to an outside source.
S&J’s POINT SEVEN: It was suggested that the City should use “excess” funds for projects like the Tlaquepaque bridge.
Funding for the underpass near Tlaquepaque is in the City’s current budget.
RESPONSE: Tlaquepaque was merely used as an example of items that were people approved years ago and never completed.
S&J’s POINT EIGHT: It was alleged that eliminating home rule will force the city to do what the community wants.
While everyone seems to think they know what “the community” wants, the fact is that members of the community have widely different ideas of what is needed and wanted.
RESPONSE: We believe this statement largely underestimates the ability of this community to come together. It is time for us to bridge the gap and come to the table so we can be good stewards of Sedona.
The people of Sedona do have a strong vision that is largely harmonious. The difference is, “who” you choose to listen to and the motivation behind that.
There is a balance to be found, but there is currently a lopsided ear from City Council. Additionally, if the city wants to allow true representation at the polls when deciding the future and direction of Sedona, initiatives such as Home Rule would not be placed on an August ballot when a large percentage of our population is vacationing.
S&J’s POINT NINE: It was stated that we don’t lose the library if home rule goes away because the library gets county funds and has lots of money.
The library receives money from the counties but relies on the funds contributed by the city to keep the doors open on the current schedule and to provide the programs so many residents enjoy. If you have any questions about how the loss of home rule will affect the library, just ask them.
RESPONSE: What we continually state is that we have an incredible Library with many great resources that many libraries do not have.
The fact is that it is technically not a city library. It is funded largely by county property taxes. The city does currently give the library about 31% of its operating capital, which totals about $500,000.
Without those additional funds from the City of Sedona the library would have an annual operating budget of more than $1 million dollars. If the City of Sedona chose not to include them on a request for a sensible one-time override or a move to Permanent Base Adjustment the Library could feel a temporary pinch.
Our Library is safe no matter how you vote. Keep in mind, the current numbers still reflect a downturn in library funding due to a loss of employees and hours during the height of the COVID scare.
We love the Library and will always support the library with or without Home Rule.
S&J’s POINT TEN: Every community around Sedona is growing in population, but we aren’t. The implication was that somehow the City is at fault.
Sedona is not losing population because of home rule and the programs the City undertakes. Sedona is losing population because the housing stock is being turned into short-term rentals where there is no resident to count in the Census.
The State of Arizona caused that problem, and despite the City’s aggressive efforts, the state legislature and governor have been unwilling to make any changes in the law to ameliorate the damage that is being done to our community by short-term rentals.
RESPONSE: This is a real concern, and the finger does keep getting pointed at the state instead of taking a deeper look at local causes.
Sedona has been extensively marketed to the world, primarily targeting realtors and investors because that is much of the Chamber of Commerce’s membership.
Sedona has fallen victim to corporate takeover of our homes due to the public/private partnership with the Chamber of Commerce when 71% of its membership is either not in Sedona nor in tourism.
The Chamber markets real estate, which primed Sedona for a takeover through Chamber marketing. A responsible tourism office run by the city would never have allowed non-tourism businesses to be promoted throughout the world via the tourism marketing.
S&J’s POINT ELEVEN: The current budget is a huge increase over what we were told the budget would be four years ago.
I don’t believe anyone 4 years ago knew what the revenues and the budget would be today. No assurances could possibly have been made.
RESPONSE: The budget went from $62.6 million just last year to an estimated $112 million for 2022/23. That’s almost double in one year.
One point here is just because Sedona collected excess revenues during the pandemic doesn’t mean we must rush to spend it. The voters should also have a say in where that money is utilized and when.
The Council should not take it upon itself to determine we must fast-track a transit system, land purchases and major construction projects from A to Z without properly laying out the plan and groundwork for the community and having voter approval in the direction and speed.
There is a dip in the economy currently, prices are extremely high. It is not prudent to drastically increase expenditures and bond debt at this point in time. It is prudent to have savings in the bank that is well beyond the normal cushion.
S&J’s POINT TWELVE: Citizen Engagement groups meet in closed sessions.
The various citizen Engagement work groups are tailored to the specific task at hand and do not operate as a one size fits all. I am unaware of any citizen being turned away from sitting in and observing them if they had an interest.
RESPONSE: No Citizen’s Engagement in any form has taken place for the 2022/23 Budget. It is a fact that Citizens Engagement Groups do meet behind closed doors. There may, however, be one or two that don’t. That doesn’t make it right. Another point made here is that non-residents are able to join, and the entire community is represented by merely 5 to 8 people, including those non-residents, without transparency. Those handful of participants are handpicked by the City Manager.
Thank you for the opportunity for this dialogue. It has been quite revealing and entertaining.
To follow our efforts to bring our community together and provide an alternative perspective please visit HomeRuleSedona.com. We welcome you to join us for our upcoming Home Rule Workshop Wednesday July 6th at 6:15 p.m. at the Ultimate Light Mission at 2115 Mountain Road.
This is an advertisement
10 Comments
I am constantly amazed, so many words and not one solution?
Use useless information to prove a point? Is Flagstaff a tourist town? Has awesome transportation system.
Cottonwoods budget is 139 Million and they are already running a bus system? Population of 11,265.
Cottonwood dosent have 2 state highways that meet in the heart of their city?
So your solution is strangle the city budget because you dont like it….Strangle the city traffic problems by not affording to do anything?
I believe that problems need be addressed to fix anything….and yes it costs money…Monies that are paid by 77% of the tourists…
Can one of you please explain to me how doing nothing fixes anything? …..
Thanks for your concern. The point of this article was to address issues Scott Jablow and Jessica Williamson addressed, not to hand you all of the solutions in one article. To answer your Flagstaff question… Yes, Flagstaff’s main industry is tourism.
West Sedona Dave: Why not give your name,. I put my name to everything I write anywhere. One has more credibility when they don’t hide behind a nickname. Flagstaff has a large University and every time there is an issue on the Ballot the students are heavily propagandized to vote against the real interests of the full time residents then later they finish school and leave town leaving behind them a mess they caused with their votes knowing they would not have to live with the consequences. So I have been told by a number of residents of Flagstaff in notable government agencies. If you attend the meetings being held by the No on Home Rule organizers and there are several events you just might hear the solutions they offer. They answer all the questions. Joan Shannon 315 Smith Rd Uptown Sedona
Thank you, Shelley, for addressing this on Sedona Biz. The fact that a city council member called-out a constituent by name and then misunderstood their comments is really the heart of the problem. As you point out, many of the council person’s responses don’t really address the points that were made at the presentation. Instead, they side step them. The Sedona city council that has been so entangled with the Chamber of Commerce for so many years, and is so locked-in to the way they have done business for the past decade, that they can’t even imagine taking a new approach. It is just beyond their ability, and they simply follow, lock-step, every suggestion given to them by city staff members (or chamber members) who are equally unable or unwilling to attempt new solutions. There is a lot of outmoded and rigid thinking going on.
Every time a resident expresses a concern, they don’t get a council person who says “I am listening, let’s talk more.” That is what we need, not an argument or a point-by-point response that ignores what the constituent was actually trying to express.
In this election, I am not voting “against” the incumbents or city staff. I am voting FOR newcomers with new perspectives who will bring new ideas and solutions. Will all of those new ideas work? Are they all brilliant ideas? I don’t know, but for goodness sake let’s give some of them a try! What we’ve got right now is not serving us well.
In addition to voting for new members on the city council I will vote No on Home Rule because I want to require the city council to come back to voters with NEW spending proposals. As you mentioned, I think plenty of Sedona voters will vote for an override or permanent base adjustment in order to support programs and activities that benefit us, Sedona residents, instead of continually feeding the tourism economy or spending funds to fix the problems caused by over-spending on the tourism economy.
Yes, thank you, Faith. This is not about voting “against” anyone. It is about setting our focus and vision on what we intend to bring forth. I believe in the people in this community.
Flagstaff is a University town. Many students add an influx of population that needs a bus system and the square miles the town encompasses with pockets of housing is why they have a more comprehensive transportation sysyem.
Thank you Jeanie, you were right on. Many of those students do not own cars so depend on a transportation system. Joan Shannon
I’m not sure where I’m going to land, but I wanted to share the reasons why I’m considering voting no on Home Rule.
I’ve heard supporters of “yes” to Home Rule say that it’s a way for residents to have more local control over our town. But two recent actions by city government makes this sound somewhat disingenuous: the Planning and Zoning vote to approve the zoning change for the development on Jordan Rd and the approval to build a massive parking structure on Forest.
Local opposition to the Jordan zoning change was unmistakably overwhelming. And please recall, without the change, existing zoning allows for the largest residential development in Uptown in many years. Yet, P&Z supported the change regardless. While this development might not have a direct budget impact, it was an indication that local control isn’t a priority for P&Z.
A massive parking structure on Forest also seems to have challenges garnering wide support from Uptown residents. But here too, many in the community seemed willing to compromise on a well-manicured surface lot. City government was unwilling to move slowly and compromise on a more conversative, less risky approach. A large surface lot would help us answer questions about impact (noise, congestion, safety, pollution, character, etc.) instead of taking a big a gamble all at once. If everything went well, perhaps a structure could be considered down the road. If things didn’t go well, it’d be relatively easy to turn into a park. Again, where’s the local control? Even if we forget local control, where’s the compromise?
I like to think I’m rational most of the time, but I’m having difficulty enthusiastically supporting Home Rule right now. If I end up voting no, this is the reason why.
@ Chris, isnt your way of thinking NIMBY? Are you saying there isnt a parking problem in uptown? Yes council and government has to solve problems….Did you have an alternate to fixing the ongoing parking problems? Without spending money? Between the Forest road extension and the addition to the parking garage structure signage would point to taking Forest to get to West Sedona without going through the “Y”…Sure sounds like a decent problem solved..Not completely, but maybe a very good move in the right direction. No?
As for the Jordan road situation, you cant say they did listen to the people?…Now on the twisted side of things it will now be worse by not approving the apartments now….But that developer has the right to develop that land any way they want…Thats the fact of the matter….But wait for these giant Air B&B homes they will build because the zoning wasnt changed. You do know we have homes all around town that are 8 to 10 bedrooms made just for Air B&B? So traffic will increase and still follow all the existing codes.. Thats 8 to 10 rental cars at each home.
But as I believe that was said already here what will saying no home rule really do?….The city would be bound to only spend 31 million dollars….That may sound like a lot but it isnt. The police dept takes 9 million alone….The rest will be basic services and cripple Public Works….
Saying no dosent fix a thing. Thats not an opinion is a fact…..So no trail shuttles, no expansion of a transportation system. I thought we had traffic problems? So doing nothing will improve that?
No new roads, no fixing current roads that need repair…..In a strange way I will be funny that 2 people running if home rule dosent pass will probably throw their hand up in the air, and see the error in their way of thinking! It will just be a do nothing fix nothing council…Is that what you want?
We dont have city tax and the people who visit pay 77% of our taxes for us. We go to a grocery store and buy food because we live here and not taxed on it. Tourist go out most of the time to eat and help us improve our city.
Some hate the tourists without understand some of the good things they bring. Very few people grew up and have stayed here. Many drove through, fell in love, or was a tourist that made them fall in love and move here.
Vote how ever you feel. Thats how it works, but when nothing gets done your better be ready to stick up for making a bad situation worse. Because thats what will happen! Doing nothing never has fixed any problem.
Vote YES on home rule, so we can dictate the direction our city moves in the future! It dont take much thinking to understand nothing good will happen with a NO vote
First, I’m not sure you read my post well enough. Second, NIMBY isn’t the insult you seem to think it is, especially in the deceitful way you’re using it.
To answer questions directly and hopefully provide the clarity you missed, let me say this: no, I do not think there a major parking problem in Uptown. For most of the time throughout the year, existing lots in Uptown are not at capacity today. Sometimes maybe. But not most of the time. A controversial, massive structure seems like a blunt way to handle a narrow window of peak demand. Despite this, as I said in my post, I’m reluctantly and skeptically open to a large surface lot on Forest. That’s the opposite of NIMBY btw. This is inviting change that I’m skeptical about, but in a way that limits potential damage and has the added benefit of compromise. I’m willing to give it a shot. So what you call NIMBY I call responsible.
(However, I find it strange that so many people seem to think the solution to too many cars is to make room for more cars. Where does it end? And that’s a real question I’m asking you. Should we pave the whole place now?)
Your comments on the Jordan development are also a bit hallow. Existing zoning allows for a massive development, both townhomes and houses. You seem to suggest the developer is being deceitful and plans to build an AirBnB hotel complex with residential building permits. Maybe they are. But again, I wonder if there are better ways to handle such a situation than a massive zoning expansion on the developer’s behalf. I didn’t go before P&Z and try to request the zoning be changed to a park, which I’d actually prefer. Once more, this isn’t NIMBY whatsoever. It’s growth.
And btw, one of the biggest lies I hear over and again in this town is the talk about “density.” Not always, but what they’re usually talking about is unending growth. You want to add 60 additional units in Uptown because you champion density? Okay, which 60 units are you going to remove on the edges of town?
After reading your post I remain unapologetic about championing less density, less cars, more direct democracy, and the charm of a more rural Sedona. Because where is the artistic funky little mountain town supposed to be? Or will we have to pave that one too?
And aren’t limits to the amount of growth one of the best ways lower our environmental impact?
Whether you believe in climate change or not, whether you believe it’s a problem or not, is almost entirely beside the point when it comes to Sedona. Sedona does not have any of the major CO2/methane polluting industries in our town. Within city limits, there aren’t large cement factories or coal burning plants or steel factories or mining operations or massive cattle farms.
Besides changing what we eat and transitioning to electrification of everything once it’s green-fueled, the best Sedona can do is with efficiency, limiting excessively large development, limiting places to park cars, and limiting density-championed endless growth. Zoning. And yes, I think we can do that while increasing dignified workforce housing within Sedona and the Verde Valley.