Calendar year 2011 was 3.67% ($98.6K) higher than 2010, a modest but welcome improvement.

Carefree did not match the very strong gains realized by Cave Creek (AZ Republic article of 1/17/12).  Our last half of 2011 was up 8.07% ($100.8K) compared to their 18%, nicely aided by Wal-Mart contributions in Cave Creek.

Q2 / FY12          740,084.88                                         

Q2 / FY11          677,507.49

                              62,577.39        9.24%                                                                                     

Cal/YR 2011    2,786,580.82                           FY12-TD           1,350,736.54  

Cal/YR 2010    2,687,913.73                           FY11-TD           1,249,865.73  

                               98,667.09        3.67%                                      100,870.81      8.07%

Let’s be honest as well as realistic. Even during the best times of the year, how many people are wandering around town center after dark? Don’t count the (previously) monthly concert nights; that would be unfair.

At a cost of $18,000 – $20,000, is it worth it? Couldn’t a $200 Tourist rack outside the Town Court in the Post Office Lobby suffice? Well I obviously have an opinion, but what about you. Let’s hear from you, please answer two questions:

… and

Several points got my attention.  From the 2010-2011 budget, the town paid the CBA $12,000 for ‘a marketing campaign’.  In the recently approved budget for 2011-2012, that figure will rise to $72,000.  Not a bad raise for a 1 year old, although they did ask for $140,000.  The town eliminated $18,000 from the budget that would have gone to the Chamber of Commerce, an organization Carefree had supported, for years.  Okay, try something new, I get it.

By the way, that $18,000 will instead go to staff salary increases.

What I really didn’t get were the comments by councilman Miller.  He was quoted as saying, “that based on the success of that campaign, he supported the funding.” He went on to say “during that period, sales-tax revenue increased 3.8 percent in December; 2.6 percent in January; 3.8 percent in February, 6.1 percent in March; and 1.87 percent in April.”  Really? 

Mind you, we have no idea what he was comparing, do we?  It could be a variation of Chicago math, where one interested party supplies both sets of numbers for comparison.  Lately, it seems, there are politicians in our nation’s capital that use the same technique. 

Here are the actual 2011 numbers compared to 2010: January increased 1.91%, February decreased 1.80%, March increased 3.77%, April decreased 3.22%, May decreased 1.84%, and June increased 1.28%.

The chart provided is a factual comparison of the actual sales tax revenue in 2011 relative to 2010.  The figures come directly from State reports, and reflect the same reporting periods (months) for each year.  In other words, it is an ‘apples to apples’ comparison.

On a Calendar Year basis (6 months through June) Carefree had a loss of 0.15% from 2010, but on a full Fiscal Year basis Carefree earned 0.41% or $11,025 more than the prior Fiscal Year; that is less than ½ of 1 percent.

Miller concluded his remarks by asking himself, “if we didn’t do this marketing, where would we be?”  For the answer, consider the $12,000 paid to the CBA and the $11,000 increase in sales tax revenue over last fiscal year; Carefree would be 23,000 bucks ahead instead of 1,000 bucks in the hole.

A few other financial oddities surfaced.  Can you understand the logic of spending $18,000 to $20,000 to construct a 24/7 self-service information lobby at town hall?  Me either.  And why would the new town budget project a 3% increase in Sales Tax revenue, when that revenue has dropped precipitously 3 years in a row?  Both items would be more reasonable for Miller to question.  The budget also reflects a 12% decrease in all other State/County revenue, yet some analysts suggest it is likely to be double that amount.  Go figure. 

Once, during a prior recession (mid to late 1980’s), I asked an old friend, who happened to be a well-placed Harvard MBA, why his economic outlook was so gloomy.  He considered my inquiry for a few moments and then replied, “It is, what it is.”  I told him education wasn’t all it was cracked up to be.   In the end, numbers are what they are, not what someone wishes them to be.

While some of my comments may seem a bit tongue-in-cheek, the figures speak for themselves.  One should give serious thought to the town’s relationship with the CBA.  I’m not suggesting it is wrong, or otherwise inappropriate.  I merely suggest that without appropriate metrics in place to monitor activities against actual results, no qualitative or quantitative judgment of success can be made, at least not any that would be believable.

John Traynor, Carefree

And for the first time in many moons I felt compelled to speak during Call to the Public.  Rather than explain my rationale I’ll simply include those comments here:

I speak this afternoon, not with concern or difference of opinion, but rather with
gratitude; I’d like to thank the council members, especially those who will not
be returning,  for their service to Carefree.  Not for a moment do I believe it is easy volunteer work.  It is neither easy nor possible to please everyone.  So thank you all for your time and contributions.

In particular I’d like to thank Councilman Bob Coady, for his special dedication to Carefree and for his tireless efforts to improve our environment.  The monthly recycle events, the hazardous waste recycling program, as well as the innovative programs he initiated for
proper disposal of fluorescent light bulbs, prescription drugs, and electronic devices were all hugely successful.  The Christmas tree recycling and secure document shredding programs add to the list of his tireless efforts on behalf of residents and neighbors alike.  For almost 5 years I had the pleasure of working with Councilman Coady on most of those projects, and I can assure you that the scorching summer days were far from a picnic.

But beyond all the ‘extra’ volunteer work Councilman Coady has contributed, I also have to thank him for his willingness to listen to residents and help wherever and however he could.  That didn’t always make him popular with some folks, but it did solidify his place in the hearts of many Carefree voters.  I am proud to call him a friend.

Thank you Bob!

Bob Coady served on the council for 12 years and in that time managed to elevate Carefree to a preeminent position in the realm of voluntary community recycling.  His efforts brought positive attention to Carefree, not only within Maricopa County and Arizona in general, but also on the national stage when he was invited to address a number of our elected officials in Washington, D.C.  

Long before the advent of COINS, Bob established methods of communicating directly
with residents of Carefree when he initiated both his website and his monthly email newsletter, Carefree Matters.  I believe Carefree Matters had an 11 year run before the final edition was released on May 3rd.  Thanks also go out to his wife Sue Coady, for being his most devoted supporter and his chief editor.  Now she’ll have to keep him busy with other matters!

I sent the following note to County Elections yesterday:

In reviewing the numbers for the March 8, 2011 elections in Carefree I noted apparent discrepancies in the calculated percentages regarding the 3 propositions, 421, 422, and 424.

Can you please explain why the results appear to be inaccurate?

Below are the official results versus the actual calculated percentages:

Yet when I look at the mayoral results, things seem to balance:

Interestingly, only two filings were submitted.  Of the 2 mayoral candidates, 7 council candidates, and the pro-Schwan PAC, only David Schwan and the Carefree Prosperity PAC headed by Ned Dobak and Gary Hayward had to file because of their spending levels.  All other candidates either spent nothing or spent under the $500 threshold.

Carefree Prosperity PAC [ Pro Schwan, Opposed to Propositions ]

Schwan for Mayor Candidate PAC

Peirce notified the Town Clerk in an email dated March 18th. His letter stated:

“With the success of Prop. 422 and Prop 423 I find I no longer need to be a candidate for council member in the May 17 2011 General Election. Accordingly, by this notification I withdraw as a candidate.” The email was signed, Jim Peirce.

Unfortunately the election will now be uncontested unless others step up to run as write-in candidates. Taking nothing away from Van Allen, it just doesn’t sit well that only one person will be running for that seat.

The bright spot on the horizon is that we will be spared the venomous character attacks that would have been launched by Lyn Hitchon upon the person of Jim Peirce.

Blogger’s Note

This Primary election was interesting on several levels, most notably for the lack of interest by prospective council and mayoral candidates.  Another telling indicator was the number of incumbents  from the Schwan administration who sought relection.  Only Miller chose to serve Schwan again.

When one analyzes the final results several more interesting facts emerge.  All three Propositions put to the voters were approved, even though Schwan, Miller, and their supporters opposed them.  Schwan and Miller also opposed the voter approved proposition for direct election of the mayor, in 2009.  Voters appear to make insightful decisions regarding the rules of governance, yet are seemingly less selective about the governors.

For example, in 2009, Schwan was the lowest vote recipient in a pool of 10, yet he was accepted as mayor.  In 2010 Schwan retained his council seat when voters declined to remove him in the recall election.  In 2011 he once again received the lowest vote total of any council candidate elected to the council.  Yes, I realize he was running for mayor and not a council seat.  But what does it say that 5 council candidates, four of whom were first time candidates, received more votes than Schwan?

Even the lowest margin of approval for a proposition (57.5%) exceeded Schwan’s approval by 5.4%.

I congratulate those elected, and wish them the wisdom, insight, and strength of character to discharge their responsibilities with integrity, advancing the interests of all voters ahead of their own, or those of special interests.

Good news:

Mixed news:

I challenge the mayor or any other opponent of Proposition 422 & 423 to cite the legal source (meaning the Arizona Constitution or the Arizona Revised Statutes, not Aesop’s Fables) that says a public vote is required for a property tax based on secondary values.

It appears the puppet is trying the same trick the GOBs crowd used on the vote for direct election of the mayor: sow confusion and hope to undo the Initiative later on.  Good luck with that, but please pray for a cure.