ARS 41-563.02 Non-Compliance, 4-22-14 Special City Council Mtg. Agenda Item 3a
By Jean Jenks, Sedona Resident
(April 22, 2014)
I. According to Arizona Revised Statute 41-563.02, Elections for expenditures in excess of expenditure limitation:
It is not lawful (see ARS 41-563.02.B.8) for the City to state in AB 1767 that “…any citizen is allowed to submit an argument supporting or opposing the Home Rule–Alternative Expenditure Limitation Option.”
While ARS 41-563.02.B.8 allows any citizen to submit an argument in opposition to the AEL (Home Rule Option), an argument in support from a citizen is prohibited. Only the governing board (City Council), can legally submit an argument supporting the Alternative Expenditure Limitation.
It is not lawful (see ARS 41-563.02.B.8) for the City to state in AB 1767 that “The argument may not exceed three hundred (300) words in length” as the law limits arguments to two hundred words or less.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: THE PUBLICITY PAMPHLET FOR THE NOVEMBER 2014 AEL (HOME RULE) ELECTION MUST COMPLY WITH ALL LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF ARS 41-563.02 INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THOSE INDICATED ABOVE.
II. According to the City’s Resolution 2014-___ as proposed, “The Alternative Expenditure Limitation shall be adopted each year after a public hearing at which the citizens of the City of Sedona may comment on the proposed Alternate Expenditure Limitation.”
What does this sentence mean? I’m a little confused. Will there be Alternative Expenditure Limitation (Home Rule) elections every four years hence at the time of the November election of the Mayor and Council, or will the November 2014 AEL election be the City of Sedona’s last?
Sincerely,
Jean Jenks
Sedona Resident
This is an advertisement
5 Comments
Update: The Home Rule election will not take place at the time of the November General Elections but during the August Primary.
BTW, a review of Page 18 of the City of Sedona Comprehensive Annual Report for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2013, informs us that our Mayor and City Council spent $1,470,182 more than it took in.
Total Expenditures = $17,622,427
Total Revenues = $16,152,245
Money is set-aside in special account for capitol projects. The city does not live from paycheck to pay check it has saving to pull from.
And as you know the city has millions in special accounts.
Just saying
ss
A few days ago I received an email from the City Attorney on this matter. He is stating that I am “referring to the wrong portion of the statute” and further indicating that A.R.S. 41.563.02.B.8 does not apply to the City’s Home Rule elections.
But wait a minute! City Hall was not adverse to this portion of the statute during the Home Rule Election of two years ago.
In 2012 five of us chipped in together to pay the $250 FEE the City was extracting at that time before approval of an Argument for publication in its Publicity Pamphlet.
On April 20, 2012, after the election was over, the City mailed the following (on official letterhead) to the individual who submitted our lone Argument Against:
“Dear Mr. _______,
Enclosed please find a check payable to you in the amount of $250.00. It was recently discovered by our Legal Department that, according to A.R.S. 41.563.02.B.8, we are unable to charge a deposit [fee] for arguments relating to the Alternative Expenditure Limitation. We are therefore refunding the deposit which was erroneously collected from you. We apologize for this oversight and thank you for your understanding.
Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or concerns.”
Sincerely,
[signature]
Susan L. Irvine, CMC
City Clerk
I think we all learned a lesson. City needs oversight. Home rule – NO.
Although there’s some monies set aside in capital accounts for non-WW projects, it’s nowhere near enough. The City’s unsound financial management with regard to its long-term capital improvement plans is no secret. Underinvestment in infrastructure such as roads and drainage has been a problem.
According to City Manager Tim Ernster: “In order to continue to address capital infrastructure improvements and pursue new capital outlay projects beyond 2017 [i.e., FY 2016-17], other funding sources and/or a debt financing strategy must be pursued.” Ref: Budget Work Session documents for the April 29 – May 1, 2014 City Council meetings.
The single largest outlay in the proposed FY 2014-15 operating budget is the $1,248,500 handout to the (regional) Chamber of Commerce. This is over twice the amount of the contractual agreement between the City and the Chamber for the current fiscal year. No RFP’s or competitive bids were pursued, although requested time and again.
Hasn’t City Hall’s mindset evolved to fund ever increasing demands for new and expanded handouts of taxpayer dollars to special interests within and outside the City limits–for use both within and outside the City limits? Organizations in the greater area should not be receiving favorable subsidies and City protection of their market share, thereby restricting competition and undermining productivity.
Now to the City Manager’s mention of a debt financing strategy: The Arizona Department of Revenue reports Sedona’s per capita debt as $5,096.68. This is the 7th highest of Arizona’s 91 cities and towns.