In the News

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.

Saddlerock Crossing gets zone change in 4-3 vote – Sedona Red Rock News

The site of the former Biddle Outdoor Center nursery at Soldier Pass Road in West Sedona, vacant for years, may finally see development after the Sedona City Council voted 4-3 on Sept. 24 to approve a zone change and a development agreement for the planned Village at Saddlerock Crossing hotel and residential project.

Saddlerock Crossing is the latest lodging development planned for the site since James Biddle’s original proposal in 1984 for a 100-room hotel with 60 casitas on just under 10 acres.

The current proposal, by the Baney family, calls for a 100-room hotel and 46 workforce apartments on 6.4 acres. The zone change was previously approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission in a 4-2 vote on Feb. 17. City staff had recommended denial on the grounds of lack of compliance with Land Development Code criteria. At the time, the plans called for 110 hotel rooms and 40 apartments, with half of the latter designated as workforce housing. Council deferred its decision for six months pending additional community outreach by the developer.

Planning Manager Cari Meyer said that staff’s assessment had not changed as a result of modifications made by the developers.

“They believe that they have addressed a number of those comments,” Meyer said. “Looking through their resubmitted plans, they had not.”

“We submitted a complete updated set of plans on July 31,” Baney Corporation attorney Benjamin Tate said. “There are some inconsistencies in those plans that need to be addressed that your own community development director said are small enough that they can be addressed through the permit review process. If these were substantive differences … I can’t imagine that that is a statement they would make.”

Councilman Brian Fultz noted that the final public meeting held by the developers to take comments to be incorporated into the plans was three weeks after city staff’s deadline for the plans to be submitted.

“It was essentially an impossible situation,” Fultz said.

Adjustments for Neighbors

Following the council’s March deferral of the project, Tate said, the Baneys held five public meetings attended by approximately 35% of neighbors, which, “for a neighborhood that has as many out-of-town mailing addresses as the Saddle Rock neighborhood does, that’s a pretty extraordinary rate of participation.”

Tate explained that after receiving community comment suggesting they compete with short-term rentals by offering comparable amenities, 20 of the rooms were redesigned as 10 self-contained suites, which “brings people that are visiting out of the neighborhoods and into hotels, which is where they should be.”

Other changes made in response to community comments included increased screening, the elimination of balcony hot tubs, removal of bike racks, the removal of a sidewalk and the addition of sustainability commitments and a dog park.

The 46 apartments will be restricted to “income-qualified workforce housing” for a minimum of 50 years or as long as the property is operated as a hotel. Leases will be for a minimum of 90 days and “every other unit that becomes available, we are giving priority to … somebody who is a Sedona resident who is either employed or has a valid offer of employment,” Tate said.

Tenants parking on public streets in the Saddle Rock neighborhood will be considered to be in breach of their lease. Personal property, including barbecues, may not be kept on balconies, amplified music will be prohibited and quiet hours will be imposed from 9 p.m. to 8 a.m. Dogs other than service animals will be prohibited in the residential units, although the Oxford-managed hotel will be pet-friendly.

As a result of the workforce housing component, Tate said the Baney Corporation estimated “an anticipated net loss of $7 million” over the next 25 years, while the value of that component to Sedona would be around $24 million.

When council raised questions about concerns over balconies overlooking the Saddlerock neighborhood, Tate replied, “Categorically no … there are no balconies that face south.”

Trip Reduction

Tate also presented the results of four different traffic modeling scenarios if the property were developed under by-right commercial zoning, which would range from around 6,000 average daily trips if 15% of the property were occupied to 14,474 daily trips if 60% of the property were developed. Estimated traffic for the Saddlerock Crossing project is 1,374 trips over a 24-hour period.

“Simply by rezoning this property … there is an actual tangible public benefit in terms of trip reduction,” Tate said.

Public Split

Public comment on the proposed rezoning split down the middle.

“I think they did an outstanding effort of listening to the comments and trying to resolve them,” neighbor Larry Jackson said.

Neighbor Mike Vitek said the zoning change would contradict council’s previous calls for more multi-family housing and criticized the Baneys’ $25,000 contribution to the Sedona Historical Society for Cook’s Cemetery maintenance.

“I would ask the city council to please not let perfect be the enemy of the great,” neighbor Howard Kipnis said. “This project appears to us to check all the boxes.”

“They did a great job of reaching out and talking with people, but I didn’t feel that it was an attempt to bring the community together,” neighbor Alan Sirotkin said.

“They’ve listened to the community and they’ve done a lot of outreach,” neighbor Carol Rizzi said. “More so is the affordable housing. This is what I’ve heard Sedona asking for for 25 years.”

“This project I think is gonna help our neighborhood,” Tom Carter said.

“They want to be our neighbors. They’re jumping through these hoops,” Carter continued. “It seems like you’re putting a lot of obstacles up.”

Council Comments

“We haven’t built one unit,” Councilwoman Jessica Williamson said. “Here we have a chance to have 46 affordable units … I don’t think that’s no community benefit.”

Councilman Pete Furman said a hotel would be preferable to more STRs and called the idea of requiring developments to provide housing for all employees “dangerous, ill-conceived.”

“It’s expensive in Sedona because people like us moved here,” Furman said. “The price of housing has gone up because of us.”

“There’s a lot to be said for 46 units,” Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella said.

“Privately-owned land will be developed,” Fultz said. He estimated that since some apartments will be occupied by more than one person, the project’s 46 units will potentially accommodate between 55 and 69 residents.

“Those incremental people could be the ones serving you at the restaurant,” Fultz said.

“There’s no guarantee that anything else developed there will be multi-family residential,” Councilwoman Melissa Dunn said, and 46 units would be “more than any other commercial property has or has offered,” while STR townhomes or market-rate apartments would create even more traffic.

Mayor Scott Jablow admitted the Baneys’ outreach was ultimately “textbook” and “really impressive,” but argued that the project should be denied.

Council voted 4-3 to approve the zone change and the development agreement, with Dunn, Fultz, Furman and Williamson in support and Jablow, Kinsella and Ploog opposed.

Council to move ahead with 15 mph OHV speed limit – Sedona Red Rock News

With little public interaction, the Sedona City Council took the first step on Tuesday, Sept. 10, toward making Sedona the first city in Arizona to have a separate and lower speed limit for off-highway vehicles by holding a public hearing on a proposed ordinance limiting OHVs to 15 mph on all city-owned streets. Council agendized future discussion of such an ordinance in July after receiving a petition signed by 43 residents of Morgan Road requesting such a speed limit reduction on their street.

The proposed language of the ordinance would amend Chapter 10.15.040 of Sedona City Code by adding section B: “Pursuant to the provisions of [Arizona Revised Statutes §] 28-627 and §28-703, the established speed on all roads and streets for all-terrain vehicles and off-highway vehicles shall be 15 miles per hour where adopted by City Council by resolution and where posted by appropriate signs. This section shall not apply to the regulation of any speed of all-terrain vehicles or off-highway vehicles upon any state or federal highway.”

Except for a portion of State Route 89A in Uptown, State Routes 89A and 179 are owned by the Arizona Department of Transportation.

The ordinance would also codify a substantial amount of language describing the alleged safety deficiencies of OHVs, which City Attorney Kurt Christianson said was intended to “clearly establish” that OHVs are unsafe and that “noise creates a health issue.”

According to fatality and injury studies by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, OHVs are approximately six times less dangerous than cars in the United States as a whole and 50 times less dangerous in Arizona.

“The 15-mph speed limit would not apply unless adopted by resolution and then posted by signage,” Christianson told the council in response to questions from Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella. “It’s a blanket one to get it on the books by ordinance … and then any time council wants to designate a road or not designate a road, they can just pass it by a resolution. It’s a quicker process … The ordinance amends the law to allow a lower speed limit; council can then, just by resolution, designate OHV speed limit routes … It does not require them to actually adopt a 15 mph speed limit.”

“Why would we not just be looking at reducing the speed limit on that road for all vehicles?” Kinsella asked.

Christianson explained that state statute requires a traffic investigation be done to support any alteration to speed limits, and that by including the language relating to the purported safety risks posed by OHVs in the ordinance itself, the documents cited in the ordinance could be used “to justify the lower speed limit,” while changing the speed limit for all vehicles would require a separate investigation.

Public Works Director Kurt Harris estimated that it would take approximately one month to conduct such a study.

“I don’t believe there’s any rollover accidents on Morgan Road,” Christianson added.

Councilman Pete Furman asked whether the city’s noise ordinance could be used as an excuse to ticket OHVs for engine noise, which Christianson responded would be preempted by state statute.

Furman then suggested non-uniformed city personnel be used to wave vehicles down as “part of a new education campaign to stop everybody.”

“Not what I would recommend,” Christianson said. “The only one with legal authority to stop a car would be a police officer.”

“We stop people with our folks at Back o’ Beyond,” Furman said.

Harris told council during its December priority retreat that the Back o’ Beyond traffic assistants have no authority to prevent drivers from using the public road.

“I could not find another city in Arizona that has adopted an OHV speed limit,” Christianson said in reply to another question from Furman.

“I’m looking forward to hearing from [Sedona Police Chief Stephanie Foley] … as to how any of this would be enforced,” outgoing Councilwoman Jessica Williamson said.

“My only concern would be meeting your expectations of how heavy that enforcement is,” Foley said, and added that if there was no conflict with city needs, she would let officers sign up for overtime on Morgan Road. She also suggested using a message board to “gain compliance.”

“Having two different speed limits … might encourage trying to pass a vehicle that’s going slower,” Kinsella said. “Am I going to get impatient and try to pass in an inappropriate place?”

“We think it will improve safety and certainly noise,” said Morgan Road resident Carl Jackson, while acknowledging that safety concerns over OHVs on Morgan Road are “subjective.” “For sure, they’re louder than any other vehicle type.”

He argued that a 15 mph speed limit on OHVs would reduce the noise they produce by 3 to 6 decibels. “We’re bringing it down closer to other vehicles. That’s the objective.”

Two previous city studies on OHV noise and an additional study by the Greater Sedona Recreation Collaborative, of which Jackson is a member, all concluded that routine OHV noise is below the level at which hearing damage can occur.

With regard to concerns that the lower speed limit would cause traffic backups or dangerous passing, Jackson said twice that he considered it a “pretty low probability,” as the road sees “about zero to three OHVs per hour … about 10% to 20% of our motorized recreation volume … Most of our volume is Jeeps.”

“We would ask them to also consider increased enforcement,” Jackson said. “If there is enforcement on the road for loud music … that’s going to capture and solve a loud noise coming out of Jeeps that we wouldn’t otherwise have solved with a lower speed limit.”

“There are some residents in our neighborhood who want much stronger solutions, and feel that if we just do this, it’s going to dilute and weaken our argument to ask for other things,” Jackson said. “There is that feeling that 25 [mph] is the natural speed … they were fine if it was just OHVs.”

Nena Barlow, owner of Barlow Adventures, spoke in support of the ordinance as “a necessary step to reduce noise on this road.” “The speed limit is a great step because … if the Forest Service finds there is a ban on this street that’s limiting access by the public, it’s a big red flag for them, and then they would very likely look at developing that trailhead for trailer parking,” Barlow said. “That’s not something that we would like to see.”

Councilman Brian Fultz read a letter from Outback ATV owner Dan Candler stating that he would not oppose the speed limit change and suggesting a consistent speed limit for all vehicles, while Vice Mayor Holli Ploog read a letter from Rob Adams, a Morgan area road resident and former mayor, asking the city to require OHV trailering in residential neighborhoods “if there is sufficient disruption to the neighborhood,” as well as requesting the installation of a gate at the Broken Arrow trailhead.

Council members were supportive of the proposed ordinance.

“I have concerns about the effectiveness of enforcement, but it’s something we can do,” Williamson said. “Not everybody obeys anything, but some people will.”

“I have concerns that it’s going to create an unintended consequence of passing vehicles, of impatient vehicles, of riding close on somebody else’s bumper … road rage,” Kinsella said. “This is something that we’re looking at applying potentially to other roads in the city as well.”

“Reducing the speed limit seems to me … as really being used to address noise issues,” Kinsella added.

“I’ve been on plenty of highways that semis have to drive at a slower speed,” Fultz said, adding that speed limits “are on the honor system anyway. There’s only so much Sedona police to go around.”

“This is about people with really loud radios and boom boxes blaring,” Councilwoman Melissa Dunn said, observing that the city’s previous agreement with the city’s OHV rental companies does not affect the behavior of private OHV owners.

Vice Mayor Holli Ploog suggested that if the speed limit on Morgan Road were reduced, it could drive OHV riders to go elsewhere.

“This is a good test for the rest of the city,” Mayor Scott Jablow said.

Christianson informed council that the ordinance will be discussed again “most likely [at] the first meeting in October.”