Pete Furman

City council offers to fund 80% of Visitor Center – Sedona Red Rock News

The Sedona City Council voted Tuesday, June 13, to offer to fund 80% of the operational costs for the Sedona Chamber of Commerce’s Uptown Visitor Center for the coming fiscal year.

Following the chamber’s April decision not to pursue an extension of its tourism marketing contract with the city, the chamber “determined we are unable to fund the Visitor Center,” chamber President and CEO Michelle Conway told the council. The chamber offered to continue running the Visitor Center under contract to the city for $530,000, or alternatively to rent the building to the city for city staff to operate. If the city did not choose to pursue either of these options, Conway told the council, the Visitor Center would close in August.

City staff recommended against council approval on the grounds that “the Visitor Center may not be delivering services commensurate with the cost of operations” and suggested that if the council did want to provide Visitor Center funding, it should be limited to 80% of the center’s direct costs.

“Why is it important to you that it stay open?” Councilwoman Melissa Dunn asked Conway.

“It’s an institution,” Conway said, comparing the Visitor Center to the Sedona Public Library or the Humane Society of Sedona. She added that the center “evokes civic pride” and “sets the stage for how Sedona is perceived” as well as helping visitors understand “the potential dangers of hiking.”

Councilman Brian Fultz wanted an update on the chamber’s financial health.

“You clearly stated that you were intending to operate the Visitor Center,” Fultz said. “Now you’re saying, ‘well, we don’t think we can do that.’ What is it overall that you are going to be able to do in the fiscal year? … What committed budget do you have?”

“We’re talking today about the Visitor Center,” Conway said, before adding, “Not even the first quarter.”

“I’m trying to understand whether we really need to fund this or whether you could fund this,” Fultz continued.

“We cannot fund the Visitor Center. Period,” Conway said.

“Out of respect to the city and the years of partnership we’ve had together, we wanted to provide the city with the first opportunity to continue the operations of the Visitor Center,” elaborated Jennifer Perry, chairwoman of the chamber’s board of directors.

“I’m not getting my question answered when the day is done and it sounds like you’re unwilling to answer it, so I yield,” Fultz said.

Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella was interested in obtaining the chamber’s list of volunteers and their contact information.

“If funding doesn’t come through and you close the doors Aug. 1, what happens to the volunteer list?” Kinsella asked.

“If you would like it, we could talk about it, but that’s the intellectual property of the Sedona Chamber of Commerce,” Conway replied.

If the city were to rent the building only, Kinsella continued, “would the volunteer list be a part of that?”

“It would be up for discussion,” Perry said, but added that the volunteers would have to agree to the chamber sharing their information publicly with the city.

During the public comment period, former Vice Mayor John Martinez told council that he had asked some of the Visitor Center volunteers if they would be interested in volunteering for the city if it were to take over the Visitor Center, and they had told him they would not.

Vice Mayor Holli Ploog queried the chamber’s inclusion of an administrative overhead fee in its Visitor Center budget and its proposed retention of some Visitor Center revenues.

“If we’re paying 100% of the cost of the Visitor Center, why should you earn revenue from it?” Ploog asked.

“This is a business, and we’ve been passing through services for years,” Perry said. “That’s not good business.”

“I really agree with you. I don’t think that was a smart thing to do. But now we’re renting the whole thing,” Ploog said. “It’s a rub.”

“It’s not business sense to do work just to do work,” Perry said. “If we are to run it, the board feels strongly we should be running it with best practices of business.”

Councilwoman Jessica Williamson described funding the center’s operation as a question of “government’s role in a community.”

“Government’s role is to support businesses. That doesn’t necessarily return one-for-one on the dollar,” Williamson said. “To manage tourists, I think that’s worth money … I think that’s really an important role of government … It serves residents. That’s another thing government does … The Visitor Center provides a very, very good return on our money when you look at what government’s role is.”

As for the Visitor Center’s public restrooms, Williamson characterized them as “incredible value for the dollar.”

Williamson further drew a contrast between the council’s previous enthusiasm for a fee-for-service model and its ambivalence toward the proposed contract.

“I also want to look back at the meeting that we had, where Pete [Furman] was the only one who wasn’t saying, ‘Yeah, fee-forservice is great, we love fee-for-service,’” Williamson said. “That’s what we were supposed to have. Every single other person on the council, including me, was a fee-for-service person, and this is fee-for-service. They did exactly what we told them we wanted them to do.”

She suggested approving the contract for the coming year and pursuing a rebuilt partnership with the chamber in the meantime.

“I don’t think this serves a huge number of people,” Dunn said. “I think it serves a very niche market.”

Councilman Pete Furman said that the Visitor Center offered “some value,” but that it was wasting time to discuss what should be “more of a partnership model.”

“I’m not comfortable with an 80-20 split,” Furman added, noting that among the service provider contracts the council had awarded earlier at the same meeting, “nobody is even over 60%” for city funding. However, he said he would agree to 80% funding for one year in a spirit of partnership.

“I don’t think 100% funding,” Kinsella said. “I can’t entertain it if there’s not a cost-share model … I think 80-20 was well thought out.”

“This should be a cost-sharing arrangement,” Fultz said. “I probably can live with 80-20.”

“I don’t see the Visitor Center has to make money,” Mayor Scott Jablow said. “I agree a cost-share would be better.”

Dunn said she would be “amenable” to a cost-sharing arrangement, while Williamson commented, “100% would fail, and I would rather have a Visitor Center.”

Following the emergence of consensus on providing the chamber with 80% of its requested funding, the council voted unanimously to offer the chamber a Visitor Center contract at $368,800. The contract will need to go before the chamber’s board for final approval, which will take place at the board’s next meeting on Thursday, June 22. Perry noted that “there are other things the board is evaluating for that property.”

Revote after the break*

Council returned to reconsider the contract after a brief recess on the grounds that the approved sum of $368,800, which had been calculated by city staff on a cost-sharing basis, represented 80% of the Visitor Center’s operating costs, not 80% of the chamber’s proposed budget, which would have included the chamber’s administrative costs for $424,000.

Kinsella and Furman said they had voted for the city manager’s proposal based on direct costs excluding the chamber’s fee, while Ploog said she had thought the proposal was for 80% of the chamber’s requested budget. Williamson argued the chamber was entitled to a fee for its services under a fee-for-service model.

Furman and Dunn called the reconsideration “a last-minute negotiation from the dais.”

The reconsideration passed 4-3, with Furman, Kinsella and Dunn in opposition, with the chamber’s contract amount being raised to $424,000.

• * Details of the council’s reconsideration and increase of the chamber’s award were not included in the print version of this story as they occurred after the second recess.

SEDONA — The familiar sight of off-highway vehicles traveling through the streets of Sedona could soon be a thing of the past thanks to an ordinance proposed by city council.

The ordinance would require all motor vehicles driving on paved public roadways to comply with certain vehicle safety standards, which the city argues nearly all OHVs do not meet. 

If passed, the ordinance would make it illegal to drive a motor vehicle that is unsafe, does not include proper safety equipment or that is not approved by the manufacturer to be operated on paved or public roads within the city of Sedona.

Notably, as it is written now, there is currently an exemption for city employees under the ordinance, intended to allow the fire department to continue using their fleet of UTVs on calls for service across town.

The backbone of the ordinance relies on the fact that OHV manufacturers themselves explicitly state in their owners manuals that the vehicles are not designed for travel on paved roads of any kind.

Further, the tires that equip these vehicles do not meet Department of Transportation requirements for travel on streets and highways. 

Additional safety concerns were raised by city leaders as OHVs often lack other safety equipment designed to keep drivers of traditional vehicles safe including airbags, anti-lock brakes, crumple zones, stability control, bumpers and turn signals. 

“What is a fact is that there are six manufacturers that all say these vehicles do not belong on paved roads and that’s an indisputable fact,” Councilor Brian Fultz said. 

“Now that I know that, I can’t un-know that,” he said. 

Fultz also made a point to emphasize twice that Polaris, one of the most popular manufacturers of OHVs, does not oppose the basis for this ordinance. Instead, they are just concerned about the continued economic viability of the local industry, a sentiment shared by many of the speakers and a majority of those on council.

Futlz said it was the city council’s responsibility to take preemptive action to protect drivers who may or may not be aware of the inherent dangers of these vehicles. 

“I do believe that when a manufacturer says it’s not safe to do something, there’s a Darwinian principle involved when you do it anyway,” echoed Councilor Melissa Dunn. 

Mayor Scott Jablow said that while he understood the concerns from the community, safety should remain the priority. Moreover, he said just because there hasn’t been a deadly OHV accident in Sedona yet doesn’t mean they should wait until there is one to act.

“All we’re doing is keeping people safe,” Jablow said. “And it could be you, it could your wife, your spouse, your child, you don’t know.”

When presenting the ordinance, the city referred to the U.S. Consumer and Product Safety Commission that reports an average of more than 700 deaths per year involving OHVs. According to the Commission’s most recent annual report, there were 2,178 deaths associated with OHVs from 2017 to 2019, the most recent year with complete data. 

Councilors, residents concerned about unintended consequences

Much of the night’s conversations revolved around limiting the potential unintended consequences if this ordinance were to go into effect. Speakers both in support of and opposed to the ordinance expressed various concerns that could potentially arise as a result of this legislation.

If OHVs are prohibited from paved roadways, they would need to be taken to trailheads on large trailers, which many people pointed out could end up being more disruptive than the already-crowded parking situation that currently exists in many popular areas. 

Additionally, countless speakers connected to the OHV industry expressed worries that the restrictions will have a significant negative impact economically on local rental businesses and their employees.

More on the red rocks:Best Sedona restaurants in 2023 have views and food to savor. Here’s what to order

City leaders shared some of these concerns and reaffirmed their commitment to support the industry through a potential transition. 

“I don’t believe a city council should be in the business of putting businesses out of business,” Fultz said.

Multiple councilors expressed their general support for the ordinance but there needs to be more research into the potential impacts before they can vote. 

“We have two things to do: keep you in business, and I mean that, but keep our residents and the traveling public safe as well,” Jablow said.

Other popular off-road destinations have passed similar restrictions

Sedona is not the first tourism destination that has had to tackle the issue of OHVs on public roadways.

Just this March, trade groups sponsored by OHV manufacturers sent a letter to the Oregon legislature opposing a proposed bill that would have made OHVs and ATVs street legal in the state, stating they are not safe for highway use. 

Nearby in New Mexico, it is illegal to operate an OHV on paved roads or highways except as allowed by local authority or the state transportation commission.

Meanwhile, Montana requires any OHVs to be modified to be street legal before they can drive on public paved roadways, which could include adding a functioning headlamp, stop lamp, brakes, electric horn, rearview mirror, exhaust muffler and spark arrestor. 

These states, councilors pointed out, have still been able to maintain successful off-road industries.

“It’s about changing a business model,” Vice Mayor Holli Ploog said.

Conservative think tank questions ordinance legality

The day before the meeting, Adam Shelton, a lawyer with The Goldwater Institute, wrote a letter to the city questioning the legality of the ordinance under state law. 

Many residents who spoke against the proposal specifically referenced the letter and the potential for legal action if the ordinance is eventually passed.

“We believe that the proposed ordinance is likely preempted by state law, which allows OHVs to be legally driven on streets and highways so long as they are outfitted with equipment prescribed by state statute,” Shelton wrote. 

This does not clearly conflict with the Sedona ordinance as written, which essentially just requires all vehicles on public roadways to be approved for highway use — which appears to also be the intention of the state law.

More on tourism:Sedona takes charge of tourism promotion after split with chamber of commerce

During the meeting, Sedona City Attorney Kurt Christianson presented multiple statutes under Arizona law that he said gives local municipalities the authority to institute restrictions of this kind.

“We are not in the business of passing illegal ordinances,” Ploog added. 

The Goldwater Institute is a conservative and libertarian public policy think tank located in Phoenix whose stated mission is “to defend and strengthen the freedom guaranteed to all Americans in the constitutions of the United States and all fifty states.”

Referencing the claims outlined in the letter, councilor Pete Furman pointed out that the group hasn’t always been the best judge of what’s best for Sedona.

“I might remind all of us that the Goldwater Institute and the Arizona state legislature didn’t think short-term rentals would be harmful in any way either,” Furman said.

Sedona has been trying to solve OHV problems for years

The city has been trying to mitigate the impacts of the OHV industry for nearly a decade with very little tangible solutions to show for it. Residents have long complained about the dust and noise created by these vehicles, which have skyrocketed in popularity over the past decade. 

Many of those who spoke against the ordinance alleged that this was a roundabout way for the city to ban OHVs altogether, which the City Council pushed back on. 

While the city considers this ordinance, there is still a separate and extensive effort underway to develop solutions with various stakeholders around the issue. 

The Greater Sedona Recreation Collaborative started working last year as a collection of community representatives that reflect the wide array of perspectives on this topic. But councilors expressed frustration with the group’s timeline and their focus on solutions that have already been around for years, like reducing OHV volume or modifying mufflers to reduce noise.

“At some point in time we have to say, ‘Do something’ and I’m not seeing anything new being done,” Jablow said.

Group facilitator Jessica Archibald acknowledged that while a multi-year timeline might not be ideal, ensuring the success of this project requires the building of trust between all opposing sides — something that simply cannot happen overnight. 

“This is an incredibly complicated issue,” Archibald said. “There’s a reason this has taken nine years.” 

Reach the reporter at LLatch@gannett.com.

The Republic’s coverage of northern Arizona is funded, in part, with grants from Vitalyst Health Foundation and Report from America. To support regional Arizona news coverage like this, make a tax-deductible donation at supportjournalism.azcentral.com.

Council votes to form tourism board, emulate Thelma & Louise – Sedona Red Rock News

The Sedona City Council voted 6-1 in favor of the creation of a tourism advisory board to rubber-stamp city staff’s policy decisions regarding tourism at its May 10 meeting. Councilman Pete Furman was the lone dissenting voice.

As proposed by staff, the board would consist of 11 members serving staggered four-year terms, representing businesses, environmental groups, residents and other interest areas. The board’s functions could possibly include developing a strategic plan for tourism management.

Heather Hermen of Front Burner Media, whom the city has engaged as a consultant, suggested members of the board could both make recommendations on policy and act as spokespeople to the community.

The proposal to establish a board with fixed membership was written by City Manager Karen Osburn. It contrasts with the council’s expressed desire to explore the tourism strategies of other local municipalities such as Cottonwood, which, Hermen explained, has an advisory board “open to anyone in tourism who contributes to the tax base in Cottonwood to participate.”

Osburn explained afterward that the choice of a limited board with limited public comment periods was intended to provide “continuity in membership from individuals who commit to multi-year appointments and are invested in being there over time” as well as “ensuring broad diversity in representation, perspectives and opinions.”

‘A Strong Hand’

“Their work program, their agendas, the information that they receive and respond to are all provided by staff,” Osburn said of how city commissions and boards operate, the new TAB included. City staff “will to some extent manage the work and manage the group.”

“They’re not going to likely be having budget appropriation authority,” Osburn added, noting that the board’s suggestions may be used to inform staff proposals but will not be binding.

“I really want the city to be very strongly involved in managing the tourism program,” Councilwoman Jessica Williamson said. “I want the city to have a strong hand in this. I don’t want it to sort of become a thing in itself.”

The draft application for advisory board membership that council reviewed during the meeting listed 11 background questions for potential applicants. The questions would solicit applicants’ views on the effects of tourism “both positive and negative,” the major issues facing the city and board, the highest priorities for the city’s tourism management program, the city’s role in supporting businesses and the importance of branding and marketing.

“This is more questions than the other commissions we interview for, so this is really good,” Mayor Scott Jablow said.

Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella suggested adding a question on whether applicants have read the Sustainable Tourism Plan and Community Plan.

City Communications Manager Lauren Browne said the questions “will help make sure the most balanced of perspectives are chosen to participate on this group rather than not picking candidates because they lean one way or another. The whole point is to choose people who represent all sides of tourism including pro, neutral and against.”

Council agreed after discussion that applications will be vetted in executive session to eliminate unqualified candidates, to be followed by interviews with the remaining candidates in public. The final vote on candidates will take place in executive session.

Vacancies will be filled by a vote of the full council, in a departure from the usual procedure for filling vacancies on other boards, which are determined by a vote of the mayor, vice mayor and board president.

Vice Mayor Holli Ploog and Councilman Brian Fultz both referred to the three-person appointment procedure as “rubber stamping.”

‘Way Too Fast’

Furman objected to the entire proposal and expressed a lack of confidence in the advisory board’s ability to focus on developing ideas instead of self-perpetuation.

“Little damage will be done by us not making these decisions yet today,” Furman said. “Everyone knows the metaphor about the horse and the cart. It seems to me that we’re asking the horse to design the cart. You got to know, when you ask a horse to design the cart, they’re going to design a cart that’s meant to be pulled by anything other than horses.”

If council approved the board, Furman warned, it would “start on the path of creating one of the largest bureaucracies that we’ll have in the city … any group that’s been so empowered to meet and establish itself as an official group is just going to want to continue its existence and it will limit the potential of ideas that come in.”

Instead, Furman proposed that the city create a five-member work group that would include a council member, the city manager, a member of the community planning work group, a resident and a business representative. The work group would report to council once a month and would produce a final report on what direction the city’s tourism planning should take after six to 12 months. As part of this process, the group would review information on alternate tourism management strategies, including findings from the United Nations World Tourism Organization, the ASU Center for Sustainable Tourism and Jackson Hole, Wyo.’s sustainable tourism management plan, among other sources.

“We’re moving way too fast to create a structure that will be very difficult to alter if we decide a different structure is needed,” Furman advised. “We need much more time and thought about the structure, the mission.”

Although the remaining members of council agreed with Furman’s suggestion that the advisory board consider a wide variety of resources discussing possible tourism solutions, they rejected delays.

“There is the possibility of damage by not moving forward,” Kinsella said. “It allows things to start developing in a way that goes off and running on its own without the benefit of it being managed from the beginning.”

Ploog and Dunn stated that six months would be too long to wait to decide on the city’s next steps.

“This is our ‘Thelma and Louise’ moment as a community,” Dunn said. “We need to join hands and leap and just hope there’s something good at the bottom … We’ll be wrong, we’ll make mistakes and we’ll learn from our mistakes because we never learn from successes.”

“I don’t think we’re moving too fast at all,” Jablow said. “The businesses have not been promoted by us in years. I’ve heard this past year that many of the businesses are hurting … They know that the chamber and the council are divorced. They need to know that we’re going to move forward. Taking months to get up to speed with a five-person board — that’s not giving them confidence. We need to move forward with this plan.”

In its draft tourism management vision, the council stated that its primary goal for tourism management was reducing visitation to 2019 levels at most.

“We as a body are tasked by the public to be thoughtful and financially wise, and to have us all jump off a cliff together is super bad advice,” Furman said.

The council then voted 6-1 to make the jump