Pete Furman

City council members push pet project – Sedona Red Rock News

The grass is always greener on the other side of the dog park. Or at least it will be once the modifications to the Posse Grounds dog park expansion that the Sedona City Council approved on Jan. 10 go into effect.

The council had decided in September that the proposed surfacing material for the extension area would be decomposed granite for environmental and financial reasons. However, on Dec. 13, Vice Mayor Holli Ploog, supported by Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella, requested that the council reconsider the planned surfacing material.

“I do not have confidence that where we left things at our last meeting was leaving a surface that was going to actually be utilized in the long run,” Kinsella said, making the case that the expanded area of the dog park should be surfaced with grass rather than decomposed granite or artificial turf. “We thought we really need to have another discussion on where this could go in terms of making this a responsive amenity that will be well-utilized.”

“Subsequent to Dec. 13, I visited the Yappy Hour and talked to folks there, and synthetic grass is not a material they would be happy with, nor is it a material our staff would be happy with that,” Ploog added.

“Synthetic grass is a nonstarter,” City Manager Karen Osburn explained to the council. The city staff estimated that the cost of installing 7,000 square feet of artificial grass in the pilot area of the extension would be $140,000, and that the “intensive maintenance requirements” for it in the long term would be prohibitively costly.

“It seems the users prefer a natural grass surface,” Osburn continued. “That was what we had originally proposed, but given the additional approximately 3 million gallons of water usage it would require to maintain that surface, it was previously decided that we would go with a DG-type of surface.”

Advertisement

Given the strong desire for a natural grass surface expressed by users, Osburn suggested that the city could find a way to install grass “without using one drop of additional water. No net increase to any of the water usage that we have today.”

‘Sobering’

Several council members expressed doubt over the proposed water requirements for a grass surface.

“I still am concerned about 3 million gallons of water a year,” Councilman Pete Furman said. “That just doesn’t strike me as something that our ethics want to promote.” He also noted installing irrigation in the area of the dog park would be difficult with bedrock close to the surface.

“It is very sobering thinking about committing to a 3 million gallon usage of water,” Councilman Brian Fultz agreed. He commended city staff for trying to find ways to achieve no net increase in usage.

Mayor Scott Jablow observed that he had originally opposed a grass surface given the expected water requirements, but that if city staff could achieve net zero usage, “I can change my opinion.”

“Trading use isn’t the goal of conservation and responsible water use,” Councilwoman Jessica Williamson said. “Without grass, you would be saving [3 million] gallons.”

“Maybe we let the dogs vote,” Furman remarked. He suggested that the city install grass on half the surface and then “observe for a period of time and see what the dogs actually want and what the people want.”

“I would like to see us do better than no net gain in water use,” Furman added.

Jim Gale, of West Sedona, offered a similar argument during the public comment period.

“I think that we should think about our ethics here,” Gale told the council. “You’re no different than the governors of all the Western states. The Colorado River is drying up; 3 million gallons for dogs that for hundreds of thousands of years romped … we’re using way too many resources … I think we need to think first about people. We live in the desert, so we need to mimic the environment of the desert.”

“No net increase is not sufficient because we’re already using too much,” Gale finished.

As the discussion proceeded, council and staff realized that the 3 million gallons of usage in the agenda referred to the calculated usage for a grass surface that would cover the entire 20,000-square-foot area of the extension, not the 7,000- square-foot pilot area. On that basis, the water usage for a grass surface on the pilot area would consume about 1 million gallons per year.

The Motions

After making an initial motion to reconsider the previous decision, Kinsella proposed opening the dog park extension with a temporary sand surface, with the expectation that a grass surface would be installed later. Kinsella’s motion added the requirements that the city achieve a net decrease in water usage, that Yappy Hour continue at the softball field until grass is installed, and that any other changes be brought back to council for approval. Kinsella changed “sand” to “composite surface” after discussion.

Furman remarked that he was not comfortable setting a requirement for a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining a much lower bar for water usage reductions. Kinsella asked him if he would be comfortable with a 10% decrease in water usage.

“No,” Furman replied.

Ploog seconded the motion after Kinsella formally offered it, and Jablow joined them in supporting it, but the motion failed 3-4.

Furman then moved to install dual surfaces at the extension area and reconsider the matter in two years based on usage. He received no support for this motion and withdrew it.

Kinsella responded to Furman’s concerns by submitting her motion again and changing the requirement for no net increase in water usage to “a 20 percent decrease in city water use.” Furman seconded this motion. Ploog clarified that the baseline for determining this water savings would be park-related water usage only, not city-wide water use. Kinsella accordingly rephrased the motion to refer to recreational water use.

Kinsella’s final motion to use a composite surface temporarily until grass is installed in the pilot area passed the council 6-1, with Williamson dissenting.

How Much is that Dog Park?

The city of Sedona spent $27,433 on the dog park in Fiscal Year 2011. In FY 2014, it budgeted $5,000 for new gazebos and picnic tables. The city’s FY 2016 budget included spending of $18,120 in that year and $152,510 in the coming fiscal year for dog park upgrades, while the 2017 budget increased the dog park spending allocation to $203,010.

The FY 2018 budget specified $292,983 for dog park improvements, which included carryover from previous years. It also projected an additional $330,000 in spending for more improvements in FY 2024. The future years’ estimate increased to $360,000 in the FY 2019 budget. On Sept. 13, 2022, the city voted an additional $155,000 in funding to expand the area of the dog park.

The city’s total budgeted spending on the dog park through FY 2024 comes to $807,983. In addition, dog enthusiasts raised $37,000 toward the park’s construction in FY 2015.

According to city communications manager Lauren Browne, actual costs so far have been $346,500. The original buildout cost $279,200, which was split between $37,600 in design costs and $241,600 in construction costs, while the latest expansion cost $67,300.

Letter Submitted to the Red Rock News on 1/30/23.
Printed in the Red Rock News on 2/1/23

Say No to Divorce!

A recent editorial suggested that the City of Sedona and the Sedona Chamber file for divorce due to struggles over the need to better manage marketing and tourism. The Tourism Bureau side of the Chamber has cooperated with the City over time to market Sedona, bolster the local economy, and help manage tourism. It’s now time for the Tourism Bureau to become independent and fully assume its critical role in our community.

Let’s explore taking the Tourism Bureau (TB) to a new level that is independent from the Chamber. Other towns use this model. Its board of directors could include businesses, residents, government, and nonprofits. It could be funded by a portion of tourism tax receipts and have an agreement with the City to perform certain services and tasks. It must operate flexibly and efficiently. The TB could create and maintain an appropriate brand for Sedona, and market as needed (more at times, less at others). It should engage visitors (and residents) to respect the environment, honor our culture, and mitigate negative aspects of tourism. The TB must be a willing, enthusiastic, innovative, proactive, and motivated partner to the City, businesses, and residents. It must seek to balance the sometimes-competing needs in our community.

The growing conflict between the City and the Chamber isn’t healthy. If businesses, freed from their partnership with the City, begin an unconstrained marketing campaign, the conflict may widen and drag residents into a three-way argument. Nobody wins.

Managing tourism properly and effectively is a top priority for Sedona. This requires businesses, government, and residents to work together. This is no time for divorce. Everyone needs to pull together and make Sedona a great place to live, work, and raise a family.

Submitted by Pete Furman

“Opinions contained herein are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the City of Sedona or the Sedona City Council.” 

The joint work session between the Sedona City Council and the Sedona Chamber of Commerce & Tourism Bureau on the afternoon of Wednesday, Jan. 11, revealed sharp differences in the priorities of both organizations and provoked discussion about the future of the SCC&TB as an organization.

While members of the City Council and city staffers focused on discussing the chamber’s organizational structure and the need for separate responsibility for decision-making on management and marketing, members of the chamber’s board expressed concerns over the ongoing availability of sales tax funds for marketing and the unity of destination management and marketing.

Clarity

Both council members and chamber staff went into the meeting looking for greater clarity from one another. Bed taxes, paid by tourists, can only be used on tourism promotion per Arizona state law, thus the city contracts with the nonprofit chamber to spend those funds to manage tourism programs and run the Uptown Visitors Center.

“We are where we are because I don’t think any iteration of council has given clear direction,” Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella said, adding, “More clarity needs to come from both sides.”

“At some point we really do need to determine what kind of relationship we want to have,” chamber president Michelle Conway agreed.

Advertisement

“We really need you all to come to a clarification,” chamber Board Chairwoman Jennifer Perry suggested.

Conflict of Interest

Both council members and chamber staff differed in their views as to whether the city or local businesses should be the chamber’s primary customer.

“We are the customer,” Mayor Scott Jablow said. “I felt we weren’t being listened to.”

Vice Mayor Holli Ploog commented that the chamber board were “constantly telling us ‘we’re not your membership, your businesses are’ … and that’s the inherent conflict: ‘We’re the chamber and we’re not satisfying our chamber members.’”

Ploog added that what the chamber wants is not necessarily where the city wants to spend its money.

“Our job is to advocate for the businesses,” Perry agreed, which Councilwoman Jessica Williamson commented was “absolutely correct.”

“You need to be hearing from these businesses,” Perry added.

Conway pointed out that the chamber had agreed to pause destination marketing in 2021 in response to council and public concerns over tourism negatively affecting residents’ quality of life, and referred to ongoing claims on social media that the chamber is spending millions of dollars in city money on business marketing.

“We know better,” she told council.

Williamson remarked that the topic of city funds being spent on tourism marketing is a political issue, and that no matter how often the chamber tells Sedonans that city money isn’t being spent, “they’ll still say, ‘I don’t care.’”

Management vs Marketing

Chamber board member Al Comello reviewed the evolution of the chamber and its gradual development, with the growth of tourism, from a marketing organization into a marketing and management organization and then into a management organization as management became the overall mission.

“Be real careful trying to fix something that’s not broken,” Comello advised.

Comello also reminded councilmembers that the 0.5% bed tax that Sedona collects for tourism management and marketing should not be thought of as public funds. “It came from us taxing the tourists for the purpose of benefiting the city’s management needs,” Comello said, arguing that residents should “segregate it in our minds.”

“My interest first and foremost, beyond the structure, is that public funds are managed with propriety,” new Councilman Brian Fultz said after the meeting. “We’ve got to make sure that the funds are handled appropriately … and not to wind up benefiting chamber members. That’s the right thing to do.”

Consent to Separation

As the dicussion progressed, new Councilwoman Melissa Dunn wanted to clarify that there was a proposal for “a divorce” between the nonprofit chamber and its tourism bureau.

“Personally, I think separation is the right answer,” Ploog said. “I knew it had to be two separate entities. I was surprised that was news to you guys.”

“If you don’t make a clean split, it becomes very, very difficult to have two masters,” Dunn commented.

“There needs to be a clear separation,” Kinsella said.

“If you want to split it, it’s doable,” Comello said, but he advised the council to leave things as they are.

Holistic Tourism Bureau

“I think the solution is a new generation of tourism bureau,” new Councilman Pete Furman proposed. “A holistic bureau … it looks a little different.”

He suggested that the current SCC&TB, with all its employees, become a dedicated tourism bureau controlled by a board composed of business, city, resident and nonprofit representatives, thereby resolving issues of trust and control, and “we spin off a new chamber.” The chamber could then contract with the tourism bureau for needed services on behalf of private businesses, he suggested.

Sedona could be “one of the pioneers” for this model, Furman said, calling for the new bureau to be enthusiastic, proactive and “inherently motivated to think of the pluses and minuses of tourism management.”

Public Option

“Obviously, there is not consensus among council,” City Manager Karen Osburn said.

“Holistically, there is a need to morph into more destination management,” Osburn continued, replying to Furman’s proposal. She went on to say that the chamber may not be the right entity to do that, and that city staff might do a better job of handling destination management.

“Are you the right entity to take on tourism management and what does that mean?” Osburn asked. “Maybe those things are better suited for us.”

“As a city, we have the responsibility to do significant management,” Osburn said, noting that the chamber and its tourism bureau would still play a role in that process and could focus on branding and marketing.

Osburn emphasized to the council that the city’s Sustainability Department was concerned about the sustainability certifications being offered by the chamber, stating that they felt strongly that there was only room for one such program in the city and that the chamber effort did not have any teeth to ensure compliance.

“Some of this needs to come in-house to Sedona,” Kinsella said, adding that the city would likely have to hire an expert to help it assess and identify its needs.

“Sustainable tourism is really new,” Williamson said. “We don’t really know what it is, either,” commenting that eventually it will be someone’s job to figure that out.

“That already exists with Michelle [Conway],” chamber board member Lonnie Lillie countered. “You have an expert in tourism, just not under the city roof.”

“The problem is that she’s answering to the chamber,” Kinsella said. “There’s a conflict there.”

“It isn’t the staff, it’s the leadership,” Ploog said.

“I don’t think it’s city,” Furman differed. “Our plate’s full.”

“I would be cautious about assuming that we could just bring in the functions the chamber currently provides for us,” Fultz commented afterward, noting that the city does not have the chamber’s marketing skill set.

Fee for Service

As an interim measure, the council eventually agreed to accept the chamber’s proposed alternative of a fee-for-service business model for Fiscal Year 2023-24 while evaluating future options. Some council members nevertheless expressed concern about that model, particularly in the long term.

“The health care industry is fee for service. It doesn’t get good press,” Furman said. “Fee-for-service models look more transactional than partnerships.”

He added that it would open the door to higher prices for contracts that the chamber did not want or was not equipped to undertake.

Williamson pointed out that a fee-for-service model would require putting out a separate RFP for everything the council wanted to do.

“That’s not really the direction I’m interested in going at this point,” she said.

Ploog argued that fixed-price contracts produce better outcomes than time-and-materials contracts. “I’m supportive of going to fee-for-service for the upcoming fiscal year,” Kinsella said, identifying it as an “interim step” in the process of making a final decision about what functions should be incorporated into city government. She noted that “that fee-for-service model already exists on one side” of the chamber, as businesses can pay additional fees for services not included in their membership benefits.

“I would like to look more toward fee-for-service to start,” Jablow said. He suggested that although the city could permanently alter its relationship with the chamber in the future, if the fee-for-service model works out, it might not need to be changed.

Perry expressed that she would have preferred to continue with the existing partnership model, but she likewise concurred on a fee-for-service model as a temporary solution. She clarified that the chamber will contract with the city for specific services and will also have the ability to accept other clients.

“We’re talking about 2024 as the year of the exploration,” Kinsella said.

“This was very helpful. This was a conversation that needed to happen,” Conway concluded.

City councilors, staff explore splitting Chamber of Commerce from tourism bureau – Sedona Red Rock News