Primary Election, Final Results

The final numbers are in.  The results are as follows:

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.

The day after, preliminary results

As of 7:30 AM on Wednesday, March 9, 2011 the preliminary results for the Primary Election in Carefree are noted below.  Be advised that official results will not be available until Thursday or Friday of this week.

Good news:

Mixed news:

A Short Walk Down Memory Lane

You may or may not recall that there was no public vote in 1999 when the 7%, non-callable bonds for the Carefree Water Company were issued.  That debt is the primary reason your water rates are what they are. 

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.

Puppet shows and other nonsense

Carefree’s town puppet is at it again.  While trying to sell The League of Towns and Cities as the best and last word on property taxation and bonding, the two biggest subjects in town hall of late, the puppet ignores the ultimate word on these subjects, the Arizona Revised Statutes.

Within the Statutes (Arizona Law) one can find the following (highlight is mine):

42-17056.   Initial base levy limit if no primary property taxes were levied in the

preceding tax year

A. If a county, city, town or community college district did not levy primary property taxes in the preceding tax year, the governing body shall submit a proposed amount to be raised by primary property taxes for approval of the voters.

B. The election shall be held on the third Tuesday in May …

You can verify and read the entire Statute here:

Statute 42-17056

 What cannot be found, anywhere in the Statutes is an identical, or even closely similar statement regarding the Secondary Property Tax.  In the absence of law, certain Carefree politicians and their puppets want you to vote against the protections afforded by Propositions 422 & 423.  It should be noted that neither proposition prohibits a secondary property tax.  They simply protect residents by making the approval process more  transparent, giving voters the final say.

Another entry you will not find in the Statutes is any representation that The League of Towns and Cities is the official source of information on Arizona State Law; neither is the puppet.

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITIONS 421, 422, & 423.

Carefree Propositions 421, 422 & 423

You should vote YES for all three.

The costs of adding your very own argument, either in favor or against, a ballot proposition dropped before this election from $250 down to $100 I believe.  Both arguments against Proposition 421 are absurd, but at least the value of 2 cents in Carefree has now been established.

Anyone wishing to run for elected office already may run.  Further, there is no way on this planet that a minority can deny a voting majority the ability to select representation.  Asking incumbents to step aside for one cycle ever three cycles (6 years) doesn’t seem to present much hardship. 

Proposition 422 is identical in intent to a successful 1992 statewide initiative (108) that established a 2/3 vote requirement of the Arizona legislature to pass a tax increase. See: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arizona_1992_ballot_measures

The initiative process that established Proposition 422 for Carefree voters to decide is the same as for Proposition 108 in 1992. If Proposition 422 passes, the Town Council will be bound to have 2/3 of the council (5 votes) to forward a property tax proposal to voters, just as the State legislature needs 2/3 approval for legislation to increase State revenues. The fundamental basis for any Initiative rests in the AZ Constitution.

Proposition 423 covers a “loophole“, so to speak, in Arizona law.

Proposition 423 is essential in that it covers a Secondary Value Property Tax.   A.R.S. 42-17056 relates only to a Primary Property Tax; see below:

42-17056. Initial base levy limit if no primary property taxes were levied in the preceding tax year

A. If a county, city, town or community college district did not levy primary property taxes in the preceding tax year, the governing body shall submit a proposed amount to be raised by primary property taxes for approval of the voters.

There is no provision in Arizona law that requires a public vote on a property tax related to Secondary Value Property taxes. That is, there is no comparable provision in AZ law to cover what 42-17056 does for Primary Property Taxes.

Addendum:

Arizona is unique in that it uses two types of property values for taxing purposes:

     * Primary (limited) values

     * Secondary (full cash) values

Primary Values

Primary values are limited as to the amount it may increase each year.

The primary value may increase in one of two ways: 1) Up to 10% of the previous year’s value, or 2) 25% of the difference between the current year’s secondary value and previous year’s primary value, whichever is greater. In no event should the primary value exceed the secondary value.

Secondary Values

Secondary values fund such things as bond issues, budget overrides, and special districts. There is no limit on either the amount of taxes that may be assessed or on the growth rate of the assessed values.

Sources: Arizona Department of Revenue and the Arizona Tax Research Association

The only harm, if you consider it harm, caused by approval of Propositions 422 & 423 is that the Carefree Council will not be able to impose a Property Tax with a simple majority council vote, and not without voter approval. 

Seems like a no-brainer.

Everybody has one

An opinion is generally taken to mean ‘a personal viewpoint’.  When evaluating an opinion one must make a determination as to relevance, importance of the subject matter, the factual basis, and of course, the source.  When a judge renders an opinion in the course of his/her official capacity, it is considered an expert opinion and essentially carries binding weight.  If that same judge were to predict the winner of next year’s Super Bowl, well, you get the point

On the local front, there is one particular opinion spinner who deserves a bit of scrutiny.  Keeping in mind the basic criteria for evaluating the worth of an opinion, one has to wonder about the motivation and frequency of this particular oracle.  In word and deed, we are dealing with a known Coady hater.  Yes, I know that hate is a strong word but frankly there is no other way to describe certain activities.

The thing that makes these particular opinions so insidious is the claim to be presenting information as completely factual as if originating from unquestioned sources.  When playing in their dirty political waters, everything should be questioned.  Recent assertions and quotes from sources other than the Arizona Revised Statutes encompassed everything from Property Taxes, to Street Improvement Bonds, but ultimately ended on the Coady’s door step, Carefree Matters.  I can only conclude that there is some level of feral pleasure gleaned from attacking anything Coady.  Unfortunately the seer’s knowledge and/or understanding of state statutes is the more disconcerting, unless of course your name is anything Coady.

When it comes to taxes, of any kind, I prefer to keep others out of my pockets.  This is especially true on the local level where I feel I should have much more of a say.  You may have been deceitfully led to believe that we, as Carefree residents, do not need the additional protection against a unilateral Property Tax.  Rubbish.   Voter approval of Propositions 422 & 423 will afford us that protection.  I have been a resident long enough to know that Town Councils don’t necessarily vote with our best interest in mind.  I’ll cite the recent plethora of signs that sprouted up along our roadways, distastefully and hastily.    If a Property Tax is ever needed to sustain the town only you and I, the resident tax payers, should get to decide.  Elected representatives don’t always reflect the will of their constituents.  Not too long ago a former council approved a ‘text amendment’ allowing multi-level mixed use development in the town core.  A text amendment is a short-cut around existing zoning regulations.  When it comes to property taxes, I personally don’t want them taking any short-cuts.

The Carefree Council, by a simple 4-3 majority vote, could enact a ‘Secondary’ Property Tax to cover Municipal Bonds intended to finance construction of a new Town Hall.  The opinion puppet, and the masters that control it, know that Propositions 422 & 423 would stop that idea dead in its tracks.  The puppet has honed the questionable skill of lifting words or sentences out of context to provide an interpretation more suited to another purpose.

The puppet is on record, “Carefree has never levied property taxes and has no plans to do so” –  quite a statement from an unelected town official and self-appointed purveyor of truth.  I’m fairly certain that this morsel of incredulity was spoon fed to the puppet by the current mayor, David ‘Charles’ Schwan.

2011 Carefree Election Perspective

The 2011 election campaign has been essentially a civilized affair, with one notable exception I’ll discuss in a few moments. In the council race, there are 6 seats being sought by 6 ballot candidates and 1 write-in. Interestingly, with the exception of Miller, no other incumbent in the Schwan administration has sought reelection. Of the 5 remaining ballot candidates, Peirce was a write-in during the last General election; all others are new faces. I’ll provide endorsements later in this piece.

There are 3 very important Propositions on the ballot for you to consider (421, 422, and 423). All 3 are worthy of your YES vote. Two of them, sponsored by Jim Peirce, will afford Carefree residents protection from unilateral imposition of a secondary Property Tax by the Carefree Council. There has been lots of misdirectional trash talk against these items. One of the most important things to keep in mind is this: if the current mayor and vice mayor are steadfastly against a Carefree Property Tax as they claim, why have they refused to support the propositions? Saying something doesn’t make it true, especially when an incumbent is speaking. Term Limits, a proposition sponsored by Doug Stavoe, is intended to keep Carefree government vibrant and free of domination by a single mindset or by special interest groups.

As expected, the mayoral race has been the notable exception to an otherwise civil election. It has been a one-sided mud-slinging affair, using the familiar low road, with Lyn Hitchon acting as the curb-surfer. Her copious missives, which had been simply annoying in the past, have taken on an utterly nasty tone. Much of the information passed off as ‘fact’ is misleading to say the least. Contributors to Hitchon’s folly express ‘their views’ by means of vitriolic letters addressing mayoral candidate Stavoe and others on Hitchon’s enemies list.

The list of misinformation being circulated by the self-coroneted queen of truth appears endless. The primary source for the ranting in a recent edition of her truth is not the first source I’d seek. The League of Cities and Towns seemingly exists to perpetuate the business of local government and its bureaucrats. It is often referenced when cities or towns want to undertake something unpopular with voters. When the Fulcher administration attempted to implement 4-year Council terms, The League was their source of supporting arguments. When that same group opposed Direct Election of the Mayor, once again The League was their crutch. When they wrote an opposition statement to the proposition in the 2009 Election brochure, Evelyn Hitchon was their Notary of choice. How ‘Evelyn’ got that long list of people to appear before her, in essentially one day, and performed the Notary duties required by State law is a feat for Ripley’s.

I’ll address some of the misinformation being circulated in a subsequent piece. First I must address the mayoral choice. In reality there isn’t any. Dough Stavoe is the only credible, common sense candidate in this mayoral election.

 

I believe that David Schwan has been an ineffective leader, a confirmed follower lacking the vision and economic sense to revitalize Carefree. He has been out of touch with residents since he was first appointed to the Council. His record on issues, when compared to that of voters speaks for itself (see below). He embraces the role of follower, not exactly in Carefree’s best interest right now. Yes, he did get feisty, with the help of PAC money and support, during the recall. But let’s face it, a big ego and PAC support don’t determine what constitutes a strong leader – look to Washington. It pretty much assures somebody else’s agenda will be followed. Gaining insight by seeking the opinions of experienced staff or residents is not a fault. Failing to be a decisive leader in the face of adversity, and failing to provide clear, purposeful direction is.

David Schwan is now happily taking part in a process he openly opposed 2 years ago. He is running in an election for mayor, in which voters will decide for the first time who will be their leader. He actively opposed Direct Election of the Mayor. If he is against it, why is he taking advantage of that freedom? I suppose he is entitled to change his mind. Ask yourself if he feels entitled to change his mind regarding a Carefree Property tax.

I can hear outcries from certain quarters already. He lost the recall election; Stavoe supported the recall because he endorsed Traynor prior to the election; Carefree is in sound financial condition; we have money in the bank; blah, blah, blah. Let me clarify a few things for the truth challenged that live among us.

Traynor did lose the recall election, but I ran solely to give voters a choice, not because of some imagined conspiracy conceived by Schwan supporters and gleefully perpetuated in Hitchon missives. That election was over last year, so get over it as I did. Neither Koteas nor Stavoe ever supported the recall effort. Both eventually did endorse me because they believed in me and had respect for my abilities. Neither felt the same about David Schwan. It’s that simple and it involved no conspiracy; sorry Evelyn.

Only a complete fool will believe that any town or city in Arizona is in sound financial shape, and our state is not alone. Look west, north, east or south. Are there any Carefree residents who still need more proof than their own personal home values, or the number of empty storefronts in Carefree? How about vacant, abandoned, or bank owned homes in your neighborhood? Do you think Ed Lewis is crazy? Try this: whether you need to or not, inquire about a refinance on your mortgage and then check the true appraisal. You too may have money in the bank, but I bet you are trying to cut expenses and make better financial decisions than you did a few years ago. If not, run for mayor of Carefree on a platform of sound financial shape.

I’ll provide my fiscal year 6-month Sales Tax financial summary at the end of this piece. When you examine it, realize that the figures come directly from the State of Arizona and the Town of Carefree; they aren’t mine, or my interpretation. Evelyn, by way of her missives, has demonstrated a pathological difficulty understanding the simple concept of comparative analysis. She doesn’t get that comparing the same reporting intervals (months) year after year is a standard financial and business practice. She buys into the notion that there is a lag in Sales tax reporting, yet ignores the fact that lag occurs every month, year in and year out. It all comes out in the wash.

Okay, my choice for mayor is already obvious – Doug Stavoe because he is the better man and is a strong leader. My endorsements for Council are:

Peirce, Farrar, and conditionally, Saltzman

It saddened me to learn that Karen is unable to run due to family medical issues.

Here is Schwan’s record:

Supported 4 year Council terms Prop 403; soundly defeated by voters

Supported criminalizing zoning code violations; withdrawn after outcry

Supported sales tax increase; enough said, but is it pro-business

Supported the use of Town resources for political purposes; the low road

Supported big $$$ projects in a declining economy; unwise financial principals

Opposed Direct Election of the Mayor Prop 404; approved by 73% of voters

Opposes Property Tax protections afforded by Initiatives 422 & 423; we’ll see

Opposes Council/Mayor term limits Initiative 421; we’ll see, no mayor for life

Fiscal Year, 6- Month Sales Tax Financial Summary

A review of Carefree Sales Tax revenue half-way through the current fiscal year has revealed a very slight improvement over the same period last fiscal year. It should be noted that December 2010 Sales Tax revenue was $47K higher than 2009, but 2009 was the second lowest December in 09 years. The Christmas Festival likely contributed to the increase, although there is no objective way to measure its impact.

Through 6 months of this Fiscal Year, Sales Tax revenues improved by 1.07% ($13.2K).

Sales Tax revenue in Calendar Year 2010 was exactly 4.00% lower ($112K) than CY 2009, a markedly down year.

The chart below provides a summary of the actual data: