College abandons for now strategy announced at October 2024 meeting that it would increase annual property tax rate by one percentage point 

Readers may recall that at its October 2024 District Governing Board meeting, Yavapai Community College (YCC) leadership informed the Board of its plan to adopt an annual strategy of requesting a one percent increase in County property taxes. According to the College, this incremental approach was intended to soften public reaction to periodic tax hikes.

However, within a matter of months, the College appears to have reversed course. At the April 22 Board meeting, Dr. Clint Ewell, Vice President of Finance and Administrative Services, indicated that the College would not seek a property tax rate increase for the 2025–26 budget year.

The reason for this strategic shift remain unclear. Some speculate that the decision may be linked to political considerations, particularly with District 5 Representative Steve Bracety facing re-election in 2026. College-affiliated incumbent Ray Sigafoos lost his seat in 2024, possibly due in part to voter dissatisfaction with his consistent support for tax increases.

Another possible reason is that College leadership recognizes the lack of sufficient support on the Board to pass a property tax rate hike amid the current political climate.

It is noteworthy that at the April meeting Mr. Bracety stated he would not have supported a tax rate increase if one had been proposed, citing recent conversations with business leaders who expressed concern about the economic impact of tariffs on consumers. In that context, he said, a tax rate increase would have been untenable.

All three of the recent Community College presidents have invested in the Rock House upgrades, which is a facility used a half dozen or so times during the year for District Governing Board meetings and little else

OPINION: All three of the recent Community College presidents have invested in upgrades in the Rock House on the Prescott Campus over the past several years. This facility is used, as far as the Blog knows, for about a half dozen or so times annually to hold Community College District Governing Board meetings and little else.  Are these upgrades worth it, especially when there is little to no transparency regarding the actual final total costs?

The most recent renovation, completed in September under current President Dr. Lisa Rhine, is estimated to have cost approximately $300,000—though the College has not disclosed an official overall cost figure. According to the College, the upgrades were intended to enhance “acoustics, capacity, comfort, and communications (ACCC).” Specific improvements included the installation of new television cameras, advanced microphones, HVAC system replacements, new technology, acoustic wall panels, and the relocation of the tech booth to the kitchen. Yet, despite these enhancements, the Rock House remains heavily underutilized outside of its role as a venue for board meetings.

Dr. Rhine’s renovation follows a similar investment made by former President Dr. Penelope Wills in 2018. Dr. Wills spearheaded an earlier renovation that introduced sophisticated electronic lighting, a state-of-the-art video recording system, plush carpeting, mechanical upgrades, and additional features. Once again, the total cost of these upgrades was not disclosed to the public, raising questions about the level of transparency in how taxpayer funds are being allocated for such projects.

This trend of costly renovations began with Dr. James Horton, who oversaw a complete overhaul of the Rock House in 2009. Dr. Horton, aware of the significant investment, expressed an intention to recoup part of the renovation expenses by renting the facility to outside organizations. However, 15 years later, there has been no public report on whether any of those costs were recovered, or if the Rock House has been utilized as a revenue-generating asset in any meaningful way over the years.

The recurring renovations and lack of clear financial accountability have led to growing concerns about the College’s stewardship of taxpayer money. Despite substantial investments, the Rock House appears to continue serving a limited function, raising questions about whether these ongoing expenditures, while nice, can be truly justified.

Inflation, last year’s increase, living on fixed income, and the camp purchase is a luxury are a few of the reasons given for opposing the increase

Copyright Robert E. Oliphant

The Yavapai Community College District Governing Board is receiving significant opposition from Yavapai County residents regarding the proposed 3.4% tax rate increase. The Board will vote on the proposed tax rate increase during its public tax hearing on Tuesday, May 21, at 1:00 p.m. at the Rock House on the Prescott Campus. Here are a few samples from the many emails being sent to the Board of what opponents of the tax increase are saying:

“We are retired couple living on a fixed income yet scramble to find the funds to live in today’s economics. We simply cannot afford any tax increases. . . . How can you possibly think we can survive?”

“With the rise in inflation our monthly expenses have almost doubled. However, as retirees on a pension, our income has remained the same. Although we support education, this proposed increase for a land grab, will not directly impact education.”

“While I think it’s honorable that you want to provide affordable housing to students and faculty and give faculty raises, why don’t you raise the tuition at the college so the people who actually use the college pay for their expenses?  That’s what I did when I went to college.  I paid tuition, room and board which paid the college’s expenses to provide those services to me.  Why burden retired citizens?  This has got to stop now.”

“This tax is a financial burden on me and my husband. We are retired and on a limited income.”

“This tax is a pocketbook issue for hundreds of our residents in Yavapai County. If anything, given rising housing costs, surging inflation and recessionary fears, this proposed tax does not help build a partnership with Yavapai College.”

“I am concerned that this tax increase which taxpayers don’t get to vote on will kill the tax increase likely being proposed for the City of Prescott for fire and police likely to be on the November ballot.    These increases surpass current inflation and their regularity has to change.  I think increase should also align with student growth. I don’t believe the growth has justified the increased.”

 “The college cannot continue to pass these increases on to the property owners.  Cutting the ADMINISTRATION and their salaries would be important to consider.”

“I feel strongly that purchasing the Prescott Pines Camp is a “luxury” instead of a requirement for the college.” 

So far, the Blog has found only one vocal supporter of the proposed tax rate increase. That person wrote, in part that: “I am 100% in support of the moves Yavapai College is making to better support their students, the education being provided, and the goal of helping with our dire housing situation. The community members at large that are ranting about the taxes are the ones that live comfortably and have zero concern for their own housing needs and really demonstrate a cold hearted attitude to the youth and educators in our community.” 

Yavapai Community College considering this tax rate increase, which follows on the heels of last year’s 5% tax rate increase

The Yavapai Community College District Governing Board meeting will be held at the Sedona Campus on Tuesday, March 19. The session will commence promptly at 1:00 p.m. Residents are invited to voice their concerns or opinions to the District Governing Board during the call to the public, typically held at the outset of the meeting.

This meeting presents an important chance for community members to weigh in on the proposed 4% cumulative tax rate increase for next year’s budget. Your input matters, and this forum offers a platform for your voice to be heard.

Please note that in order to accommodate all speakers, the Board typically limits public comments during the open call to three minutes per person.