Sedona AZ (July 27, 2013) –
Dear Property Owner,
I am writing concerning the Secondary Property Tax and the Special Improvement District matters listed on the July 30th City Council agenda. Both pertain to charging us to fund drainage projects. Referring to the City’s website provides more information.
Coconino County already has a secondary property tax for drainage problems (Ref: FLOOD CONTROL DIST on its tax bills). If my understanding is correct, the City has approximately $6 million in its coffers from Coconino County for this very purpose. Property owners in Coconino County must not be charged by the City in addition.
As is well known, this Council and others have failed to address drainage/flooding problems in a timely manner, setting them aside year after year. Not only that, in my view City Hall has failed to get its priorities straight and seems incapable of listening.
Why should our tax-and-spend Mayor and Council receive new taxes on any level? City budgets ought to set aside funds to correct drainage problems on time without resorting to raiding property owners wallets.
Sincerely,
Jean Jenks
P.S. Sperling’s Best Places website reports “Compared to the rest of the country, Sedona’s cost of living is 26.30% higher than the U.S. average.” We can thank Councilors Ward and Litrell who requested funding drainage projects via taxes be on the Council’s agenda. Naturally, the Fire District is increasing the mil rate and the School District will have a bond on the November ballot.
2 Comments
Interesting. A property tax has to be voted on by the citizens in Seonda. Wonder if they could sneak a “water” or “dreainage” tax on everyone, and whether that could be construed as a “property tax”. If that happens, Sedona will probably spend more than anticipated in court with its residents.
Readers:
A lot of people who have some familiarity with the General Obligation Bond market still mistakenly believe that the safety and liability for those bonds derives solely from property taxes. While that is partially true, that’s not the whole story. G.O. Bonds are primarily backed by the “full faith and credit of the issuer,” which would be the City of Sedona. The “full faith and credit of the issuer” covenant still, then, requires the assignment of a credit rating. Sedona’s formerly top credit rating has been downgraded two notches since our golden days and I would doubt that Sedona could pass muster in the G.O. bond market these days since the Detroit debacle has caused G.O. Bond issue analysts to recognize, as ZeroHedge has just published, that “We are now learning that each Municipal credit is a stand-alone situation which is a break from the traditional thinking of days past.” This new G.O. Bond market paradigm does not bode well for Sedona.