Pete Furman

Sedona City Council wise to not pursue Sedona Airport takeover – Sedona Red Rock News

We commend the Sedona City Council for its unanimous decision to refrain from taking over the Sedona Airport.

The concept was floated as a potential workaround to the city’s conflict with the Sedona-Oak Creek Airport Authority and, to a lesser extent, Yavapai County, over which government body controlled zoning issues for non-aviation facilities at the airport.

The law is clear: The airport is within the boundaries of Sedona city limits; ergo, zoning questions are within the purview of the city of Sedona, its Planning and Zoning Commission and various city departments. Attempts to usurp or skirt that municipal power by going through the county are made moot by this fact of law.

The airport predates the city of Sedona by some 30 years and is built on land owned by Yavapai County, but when the city incorporated in 1988, jurisdiction over the airport — as well as all the other private and public parcels within the new city limits — was transferred to the new city, with Yavapai County as a property owner.

It’s the reverse of the situation that exists with regard to the Dells and the Sedona Wastewater Treatment facility — the city is a property owner but the land is in Yavapai County’s jurisdiction.

Still, the city considered taking over the airport for a host of reasons, not the least of which was to mitigate complaints made about noise or airplane traffic by Sedona residents.

But as an untowered public airport, local governments have very little leeway to control either factor, as such airports are regulated by rules set by the Federal Aviation Administration. Once an aircraft is a millimeter off the tarmac, the FAA has sole jurisdiction.

It would be difficult, if not impossible, to limit certain types of aircraft from landing at a public airport, and many rules about noise and flight paths that do exist are actually voluntary recommendations. U.S. military aircraft, by far the loudest users of the airport, would also still be able to come and go per FAA and military flight regulations, so Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawks, Bell Boeing V-22 Ospreys and Bell AH-1 SuperCobras and AH-1Z Vipers would still fly over our skies and land at the Sedona Airport.

Simply put, the city of Sedona has no experience or understanding of how to operate an airport and would either have to bring the operations in-house with a whole new department at a great public cost, or subcontract out operations to a third party with that knowledge and experience — one that would be identical to SOCAA, a nonprofit that already performs the identical task in coordination with Yavapai County.

It’s also not really clear what the benefit would have been to municipal taxpayers other than to declare, “Well, we now own an airport. What now?”

Operations would not have changed, and all the complaints about noise, low-flying helicopters, private jets or other issues SOCAA and airport administrators already deal with would instead fall on the heads of Sedona City Council members, none of whom are aviation experts or versed in FAA laws and regulations and who are already beset with representations from members of the public regarding the other issues over which council has more control.

Politically, we would witness council members making empty promises every two years to limit air traffic or reduce noise that could not be practically achieved. Or, council members would try to write statutes as invalid and illegal as the recently-proposed OHV ban, which is preempted by state law.

Council already has enough to manage — and has difficulty controlling — and a takeover would have saddled future councils with the headache and budgetary burden on municipal taxpayers.

Council wisely took staff’s recommendation and gave it a thumbs-down. Unfortunately for Sedona taxpayers and residents, the city spent thousands on a “professional” study only to figure out what most residents, especially old-timers, could have told them for free.

In the future, if council wants advice on bad ideas, give us a ring here at the newspaper, we’ll be happy to do it for, say, one-tenth the cost of an overpriced consultant. Sorry, General Manager Kyle Larson just said one-quarter the cost. Heck, catch me on a good day, off deadline, and I’ll do “consulting” in 10 minutes for free.

In the end, the status quo remains: The Sedona Airport is a county property run by SOCAA in Sedona’s jurisdiction. Airplanes can arrive and depart in accordance with FAA regulations and the city controls what non-aviation-related buildings are zoned, built or remodeled on the rest of the mesa.

With that settled, Saturday, Oct. 12, will be the annual Wings and Wheels event at the Sedona Airport, run by SOCAA and the Sedona Car Club, offering up-close looks at vintage planes, military aircraft and classic cars. We hope to see you all there.

Applaud four Sedona City Council members who OK’d Saddlerock Crossing and 46 workforce housing units – Sedona Red Rock News

We commend the four members of the Sedona City Council — Councilwomen Melissa Dunn and Jessica Williamson and Councilmen Brian Fultz and Pete Furman — who voted in the majority on Tuesday, Sept. 24, to approve the Saddlerock Crossing development at Soldier Pass and State Route 89A.

A hotel, shopping plaza or business complex makes sense in the area, considering that it has been zoned commercial since long before Sedona was incorporated and is located along the main commercial strip of West Sedona at a busy intersection.

The site is the former location of the Biddle Outdoor Center and plant nursery and, prior to hosting that longtime business, was the location of a restaurant and bar under various names and owners, which predated the residency of most current Sedonans.

The purchase of the commercial property and the subsequent demolition of the Biddle Outdoor Center meant that commercial development was always in the cards. Property owners will build what they deem profitable on the properties they own, and so it is with Saddlerock Crossing, which will include a 100-room hotel. However, the benefit to residents is that the Baney family will also build 46 workforce apartments on the 6.4 acres.

We have stories and editorials going back nearly 30 years calling on the city to build more housing for our workers. Sedona is now short some 1,500 to 1,600 units to meet our housing need, most of which will never be built due to the high costs of land, high building costs and prohibitively expensive local regulations, low profit margins and the fact our city is encircled by U.S. Forest Service land onto which we cannot expand. Sedona still has the right under the Homestead Act of 1862 to acquire some forest land, and has the option of negotiating with the federal government to obtain land intended for public purposes, but it would take visionary leaders to spearhead such efforts.

Sedona needs all the workforce housing it can get, which readers and residents have said for years. The current council has yet to build any: A proposed project on Sunset Drive fell through, and another project on Shelby Drive has not yet broken ground, in spite of candidates’ assurances in the 2022 election that both these projects were just around the corner.

The Baneys also worked with neighbors to address concerns and altered the project based on their objections and recommendations, so they too should be applauded for adapting to the neighborhood’s reasonable concerns. Saddlerock Crossing’s workforce housing will be built by private dollars rather than taxpayer funds, which our community can now spend on other things.

It appears to be up to private developers and property owners to offer workforce housing units, as Sedona has seen a net loss of workforce housing units under the current City Council, which seems to do better building pavement, whether it’s the sidewalk on Dry Creek Road, a sidewalk under Oak Creek Bridge near Tlaquepaque, the minor realignment of State Route 89A at Forest Road in Uptown or the pickleball courts at Posse Grounds Park, which are effectively pavement with some nets — that required ripping out green grass on the 1,000-square-foot softball field.

Meanwhile, the Forest Road Extension and Uptown Parking Garage are two pavement projects that are ballooning in cost so much that by completion, they will be the two most expensive projects the city has paid for thus far this century, even more expensive than the purchase of the Sedona Cultural Park by the last council. The park may have workforce housing on it, someday, but it’s not likely to happen this decade.

Opponents of the development can argue that Sedona doesn’t need more hotels, but major land buyers and corporate entities would seem to disagree after spending hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars on market studies and business plans, researching the feasibility and profitability of building and operating hotels in the Sedona area. Surely, if the hotel market were saturated, Sedona’s hotels would be closing and investors would not view Sedona as a location where a new hotel could turn a profit. If not a hotel, the other option would have been some sort of shopping plaza, but Sedona already has a plethora of those around the city, many of which have vacant units.

In the end, a commercial development on that property was inevitable. Residents can be thankful that the Baney family wanted to work with neighbors and add more workforce housing to soften the project’s effect on the neighborhood and offer something desperately needed that elected leaders have promised but failed to provide.

Council made the right decision for taxpayers, including the Sedona residents who won’t call the new buildings “46 housing units” but their “home.”

Sedona’s housing fees top regional charts – Sedona Red Rock News

The members of the Sedona City Council heard an update on how Sedona’s development impact fees compare to those of neighboring municipalities during the council’s Sept. 24 meeting, and they weren’t happy with the results.

Council members had requested the comparison after consultant Ben Griffin, of Maryland-based TischlerBise, had presented them with a proposal for revised development impact fees on Aug. 13 that would more than double the city’s current rates.

“It is hard to have this sort of comparison,” Griffin noted during his presentation. Coconino and Yavapai counties, as well as Clarkdale, Cottonwood and Camp Verde, do not charge development impact fees, so in order to provide data for council to consider, Griffin had prepared a comparison of all development-related, rather than development impact, fees for Sedona in comparison to Flagstaff, Prescott, Cottonwood, Camp Verde and Payson.

A development impact fee is a fee charged by the city for the generalized purpose of compensating itself for having acquired additional taxpayers, unlike fees charged to support specific municipal programs such as utilities or libraries. City Manager Anette Spickard clarified for council that Sedona uses its development impact fees to finance portions of its police, parks and streets programs. Griffin’s comparison included all separate fees charged by municipalities for fire, library, park, police, street, water and wastewater services.

For single-family homes, Griffin found that Payson and Camp Verde had the lowest total fees, a flat $3,391 and $4,000, respectively; both municipalities only charge for water service. Cottonwood, which also charges for sewer service, came in at $5,626. For Prescott Valley, which charges a wide range of fees, the total was $10,719, while for Prescott, total fees would be $13,712 for a 2,000-square-foot house. A three-bedroom house in Flagstaff would run $13,834.

Sedona’s current total fees for a 2,000-square-foot house are $18,595. The proposed development impact fee increase would raise that to $26,617. The development impact fee itself would increase from 36% of the total to 55% of the total.

Griffin also presented his estimates for multi-family fees on the basis of a 46-unit apartment development with 600- and 900- square foot units, which would be similar to the one that the Baney Corporation will build as a part of Saddlerock Crossing and to the Sunset Lofts project, which the city of Sedona has not built since first proposed three years ago.

Griffin concluded that the total per-unit fee in Camp Verde for such a project would be $521. In Cottonwood, it would be $652; in Payson, it would rise to $2,140. Prescott Valley would be $4,653, Flagstaff would be $5,217 and Prescott would be $5,816.

Sedona’s current per-unit fee is $11,680. Total per-unit fees after the proposed impact fee increase would be $16,163 — or $743,482 for the entire 46-unit project.

“You’re currently at the top in the comparison, and you would stay at the top,” Griffin summarized.

Council members were not reassured by this presentation.

“I don’t think it provides us this comparison to get a sense of benchmarking,” Councilman Brian Fultz said, and asked for still more information, a request seconded by his colleagues.

“There’s no magic way that somebody else’s money, who no one ever has to worry about, pays for all of this stuff,” outgoing Councilwoman Jessica Williamson said. “We were highest to begin with and we are three times higher after the proposed fees.”

“When you look at this stuff, it sure looks like we’re trying to prevent housing,” Councilman Pete Furman said.

“There will be reaction out there to those numbers,” Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella said.

“Our whole DIF program is a small amount of money into the city,” Vice Mayor Holli Ploog said. “It’s not saying you’re welcome to develop multi-family housing in this city … I’m not sure that I can support this methodology.”

“We are so out of line with everybody else on wastewater,” Ploog added, and also pointed out that Sedona charges a higher streets fee than Prescott does.

City Attorney Kurt Christianson said that a reason for Sedona’s higher streets rate was that “we don’t have the same number of workers here in Sedona. It’s harder to get people here and materials.”

“I have a hard time buying that Prescott … costs that much less than Sedona,” Ploog said.

Williamson proposed that the council could cut the city’s proposed capital projects at the next priority retreat to eliminate the need to raise impact fees, while Furman suggested that the increase in fees was merely the inevitable consequence of growth and development.

“They must have projects,” Furman said of other local municipalities.

“Sedona has a lot more projects going on than Camp Verde,” Deputy City Manager Andy Dickey said.

“If we’re talking about building more affordable housing, then I think we have to talk about, in that case, mechanisms to reduce, or us pay for out of some other fund, those fees,” Williamson said. “I’m not interested in reducing these fees so we can have more short-term rentals.”

“We don’t have a property tax, but we could always have one,” Williamson said.

“I do understand the council’s sensitivity that we publish something that looks really, really large,” Spickard said, but explained that doing so was a consequence of the statutory review process.

The discussion ended without council reaching a conclusion on whether they were prepared to support some, all or none of the proposed increases. A public hearing on the increases is tentatively scheduled for November.

Potential airport takeover stalls on takeoff – Sedona Red Rock News

The city of Sedona’s exploratory proposal to purchase the Sedona Airport from Yavapai County was shot down by Sedona City Council’s unanimous consent during a special meeting on Wednesday, Sept. 25, which was called to consider the results of a study on airport operations and the feasibility of a city takeover bid.

Following council’s expression of interest in acquiring the airport during its priority retreat in January 2023, city staff contracted with Aviation Management Consulting Group to perform an assessment of the airport’s finances and the potential benefits and challenges of city ownership. AMCG began its study in March 2023 and presented it to city staff on April 30, 2024.

The assessment recommended that the city acquire the airport, in part to enable “increased control over the airport’s non-aeronautical development.”

The city’s 2024 budget priorities survey included a question on whether respondents would support the city acquiring the airport if it were financially self-supporting to allow “greater local decision-making.” Eighty percent of respondents replied that they would oppose a city purchase of the airport.

Prior to the meeting, the City Council received statements from the Sedona Aircraft and Hangar Owners Association, representing more than 90 residents, and the Sedona-Oak Creek Airport Authority Board of Directors recommending against city acquisition of the airport. SAHO members cited economic research showing that mismanagement costs publicly-owned airports an average of $20 million per facility per year, while SOCAA described the AMCG recommendation in favor of acquisition as “almost facetious,” pointing to the “extensive liability” the city would incur as a result.

“Is the city’s vision compatible with [Federal Aviation Administration] regulations?” SOCAA board president Pamela Fazzini asked. “If so, it will not include community centers, public parks, affordable housing, diversion of dollars from the airport, regulating aircraft once they have left the ground or restricting operations in response to political pressure … Ultimately, the FAA will determine, after a lengthy, in-depth review, whether or not the city is qualified to become the airport sponsor.”

“Airport ownership and sponsorship would come with obligations and a significant commitment of resources,” the agenda bill for the meeting stated. “Staff is recommending not pursuing ownership and sponsorship of the airport at this time.”

According to a statement from airport user Pamela Stevens, Sedona City Manager Anette Spickard likewise “clearly stated that she is not in favor of taking over management of the airport” at SOCAA’s August board meeting.

“At this point we believe there are opportunities for the city and the airport to work together rather than needing to pursue ownership,” Deputy City Manager Andy Dickey said. “The potential liability challenges the city would face are real.”

“I would just like to see a thumbs-up or thumbs-down on whether council wishes to further pursue sponsorship and ownership,” Councilman Brian Fultz asked following Dickey’s presentation. Five of his colleagues immediately responded with a thumbs-down, while Councilman Pete Furman and Councilwoman Jessica Williamson did not answer.

Public Opposition

Public comment was unanimously opposed to a city takeover.

“I found the report to be lacking in both substance and detail,” Russell Demaray said. “It makes no sense for the city to take on the liability and the expenses required to run and maintain the airport.”

Robert Stevens, speaking on behalf of SAHO, identified “19 areas of concerns or omissions by the consultants” in the final assessment.

“The liability costs could actually bankrupt the city given the right set of circumstances,” Stevens said. Also, “AMCG did not mention that the airport authority and county are bound by a master lease agreement,” and called attention to paragraph 19 of that lease, which provides that if the lease is transferred, the successor will still be bound by the conditions of the lease.

“How does the city benefit from taking over the airport?” Roger Parker asked.

“I recommend that we enjoy the benefits the airport provides to the city without a whole bunch of liability or additional work to be done,” Mark Allen said. “Just be thankful for the management you have here.”

Council Says ‘No’

Council members then rejected the recommendation of the study for the city to acquire the airport.

“This is not something that this council at any point was fervently desiring … the report falsely creates an idea that council wanted to take over the airport and that we were excited about it,” Fultz said. “My interest is that our zoning is what has supremacy on the property, and as I understand it, that is in fact where we’re at right now. So I couldn’t agree more with all the folks who got up and spoke on all the reasons why this doesn’t make sense.”

“We have no experience or understanding,” Vice Mayor Holli Ploog said. “We hear you and you are right, we’re not going to move forward with this.”

“I never wanted to take over the airport. I didn’t even want to talk about it,” Williamson said. “Everything you guys said was true. We don’t know anything about it.”

“I’m asking myself, what is the problem that we’re trying to solve, and I don’t see what it is,” Furman said. “I’m not sure why we would ever consider this as an option.”

“I do not want to have the airport … I was against this from the beginning,” Mayor Scott Jablow said, but then added that he believed “we could do it.”