In the News

Council approves service agreements with out-of-area firms – Sedona Red Rock News

On May 27, the Sedona City Council approved a set of master service agreements for on-call professional engineering services that will allow city staff to enter into certain consulting contracts with firms without having to seek council approval for each contract.

Contracts will be limited to $300,000 per contract and a maximum of $1 million over three years in each of six categories — wastewater, architecture, general engineering, mechanical and electric engineering, structural engineering and quality assurance services.

Wastewater Director Roxanne Holland explained that her department intended to use the MSAs for “smaller design” work on projects, including pipeline design and replacement and drain bed replacement.

Director of Public Works Kurt Harris said the agreements would be used for “smaller projects … things that we need to be on call and more nimble.”

Out-of-Region Firms

City procurement officer Ian Coubrough said that city staff had received 34 submissions in response to a request for proposals issued on Dec. 30, 2024, and selected 23 of those firms with which to enter into MSAs. The agreements will run through fiscal year 2028, which Coubrough said would “allow for a more efficient contracting process.”

“These are our business partners. We need to work with them and work towards each other’s best interests,” Coubrough said.

“How many of these would you consider local?” Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella asked.

“We’re not necessarily recording that information,” Coubrough said, but added that a few of the firms were operating locally. “We didn’t go through a local buying metric or anything like that.”

“That anecdotal information is sufficient for me,” Kinsella said.

Of the 23 firms selected for MSA awards, none are headquartered in the Verde Valley. Awarded firms and their locations were:

• Advanced Structural Engineering, Scottsdale
• Ardurra Group, Miami, Fla.
• Canfield Engineering and Integration, Chandler
• Carollo Engineers, Phoenix
• Childers Architect, Phoenix
• Civiltech Engineering, Itasca, Ill.
• Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Phoenix
• Consor North America, Houston
• Entellus, Phoenix
• Gabor Lorant Architects, Phoenix
• GH2 Architects, Scottsdale
• GLHN Architects and Engineers, Tucson
• Huitt-Zollars, Dallas, Tex.
• J.E. Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Flagstaff and Tempe
• Kimley-Horn and Associates, Phoenix
• LAST Architects, Phoenix
• Ninyo and Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences, Prescott Valley
• Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Fountain Valley, Calif.
• Quality Testing LLC, Gilbert
• Quantum Integrated Solutions, Tempe
• Speedie and Associates, Flagstaff
• Van Boerum and Frank Associates, Murray, Utah
• Western Technologies Inc., Flagstaff

Spending Cap

“I’m a fan of efficiency, but I don’t think I’m a fan of loosening the limits that much,” Councilman Pete Furman commented, and asked why staff had suggested a $300,000 limit on the contract value when the city manager’s discretionary spending authority is capped at $100,000.

“Why is it that [Sedona City Manager] Anette [Spickard] can sign off for $150,000 or $300,000 as it relates to this, but every thing else is still a $100,000 max?” Councilman Brian Fultz similarly asked. “I’m not opposed to bumping up the $100,000 necessarily, but I just kind of want us to have a broader policy perspective about why would we treat this different than any other discretion that we give the city manager?”

“Ian is also working on a broader procurement policy update to bring to council in which that question of signature authority and delegation will be addressed,” Spickard said.

“We don’t write blank checks for a million dollars, and that’s what this is,” Fultz said.

“If you wish to amend the motion that’s before you tonight, you can request that any work orders under this contract return to city council for approval in excess of $100,000,” Coubrough said.

“I think it should come back to us,” Kinsella said, suggesting an alternative cap of $150,000.

“They can at least get through not having to go through the RFP and all the rest of the stuff that they did. We’d have some qualified vendors,” Furman said.

“$300,000 these days is pretty small,” Vice Mayor Holli Ploog said. Councilwoman Melissa Dunn agreed.

“I can go along with the $150,000, but I wouldn’t go any higher without there being council oversight,” Fultz said. “My proposal to my colleagues is, let’s have it come in front of us at $150,000. It can come via the consent agenda.”

Furman suggested adding language specifying that “items over the city manager’s signing authority must still come to council. And then, when that floats, whatever the number is going to be the future for the signing authority, this would then float with it as well,” a proposal supported by Mayor Scott Jablow and by Fultz.

After further discussion about how the process would work, council voted unanimously for approval of the agreements “subject to the approval of the city manager’s signing authority.”

City to add FEMA-funded sirens in Uptown – Sedona Red Rock News

The Sedona City Council unanimously approved an intergovernmental agreement with Coconino County to install up to four emergency sirens around Uptown, which will be funded by a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, during its May 13 meeting.

The agreement provides that the county will absorb the costs for the design and installation of the siren system, while Sedona will become responsible for the costs of the system’s administration and maintenance after the first year of operation. Staff estimated the annual cost to the city would be approximately $10,000. County funding under the terms of the IGA will not exceed $269,200, and ownership of the system will be transferred to the Sedona Police Department on Dec. 31, 2026.

The agenda bill accompanying the agreement stated that Uptown had been selected for siren installation “as it generally has a higher concentration of tourists” who have not signed up for the city of Sedona’s Nixle text messaging notification system.

SPD Chief Stephanie Foley’s executive assistant Jessica Bryson told the council that the sirens may be either pole mounted or roof-mounted and will have the ability to broadcast voice messages in multiple languages.

Coconino County Emergency Manager Tim Carter told the council that the city will have primary authority to activate the siren system but that it will also include “a backup to our county-wide notification system, “a backup to our countywide notification system. That way, for whatever reason, there’s a redundant system that we can set off remotely.”

“It’s not the old air raid sirens that go off every Saturday at noon,” Carter also assured the council. “The testing for that is completely silent. It’s just a systems check of the electronics. The only time they make noise is when we want them to.”

“I grew up near one of the nuclear attack sirens in Phoenix and I’m very happy to hear that they can be tested silently,” Councilman Derek Pfaff said.

Coconino County Emergency Management and Sedona Fire District operate sirens in Oak Creek Canyon and conduct annual tests, usually in July.

Councilman Brian Fultz asked whether, since the project will be funded by a FEMA grant, the National Environmental Policy Act process would be “applicable for a pole in a city right of way?”

“If you want to hang a federally-funded photo on that wall, and put a nail in that wall, it’s applicable,” Carter said. “Unfortunately, yes.”

“Some of the locations we tentatively, preliminarily looked at, would be more of the roof-mounted,which goes into what we’re requesting with some of the companies that have that capability more so than others, and also that meet some of our specific codes to color,” Foley said. “We could also say that, depending on the system, that we could pick three and then add discs for adding additional radius to that location.”

“Is there any risk of those funds being lost at this point?” Fultz asked.

“We have received written confirmation from both [U.S.] Senator [Mark]Kelly’s office, who sponsored this, and from the state Department of Emergency Management that the funding is still there and is still in place, so we should proceed,” Carter said.

“You said if this was successful, we would be looking at whether or not we would want to place additional ones throughout the city,” Councilwoman Melissa Dunn said. “How do you know if it’s successful if we have no emergencies?”

“As far as how the implementation went, that system itself, and then some of the testing,” Foley said. “Ideally we never have to use it. So we might not know.”

“Can you give a timeline?” Vice Mayor Holli Ploog asked.

“I wish I could,” Carter said, explaining the timing would depend on the NEPA review and that county staff intended to score the nine proposals they had received from contractors by the end of the month and award a contract within 30 days after selection, which would be followed by acoustic studies, the submission of those studies to FEMA and finally construction. “If there’s ground disturbance, that could potentially take longer. If we submit a project that’s going on top of an existing building … that usually will be much shorter.”

“The visitor center would be an ideal location,” Ploog said.

“I was looking forward to hearing the chief’s voice beamed down to me every Saturday morning at noon,but I’ll live with that disappointment,” Councilman Pete Furman said.

Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella expressed the hope that residents would sleep better at night knowing they could be woken up by the city.

“Hopefully the system could be transitioned into Yavapai,” Mayor Scott Jablow said. “We would have control of these speakers, whatever it is that they’re speaking.”

Council considers staff requests to hire more staff – Sedona Red Rock News

Following the Sedona City Council’s budget work sessions on April 30 and May 1, the city of Sedona may hire at least 12.76 new full-time equivalent employees in fiscal year 2025-26 to fill newly created positions, as well as hiring additional staff to fill vacant or unfilled positions and several consultants.

According to the FY26 proposed budget, this will increase the total number of city staff to 201.65 if fully staffed. positions except for the two court specialists. The estimated cost of the new positions is $2,937,712.

Staff had originally proposed adding 14.76 FTE new staff positions during the budget sessions, to include five patrol officers, three traffic officers, a community outreach officer, an emergency manager and a part-time records technician for the Sedona Police Department; two court specialists and a full-time security officer for the municipal court; a dedicated short-term rental code enforcement officer for the City Clerk’s Office; and the conversion of part-time traffic control assistant positions to full-time.

After review, council approved moving ahead with all of the new

Staffing History

Finance Director Barbara Whitehorn reviewed the history of staff levels with City Council at the beginning of the session, noting that in the aftermath of the Great Recession of 2008, the city reduced staffing levels from 167 in FY09 to 117 in FY12.

“We’ve increased, in 16 years, only 13.2%,” Whitehorn said. “It’s a pretty normal increase over time.”

Sedona’s estimated population declined from 10,017 in 2012 to 9,819 in 2023.

Councilman Brian Fultz asked staff if there were actually negative consequences from eliminating those positions.

“Essential things continued to move forward,” Deputy City Manager Andy Dickey said, adding that the jobs cut were primarily project managers and other roles related to optional capital improvement projects.

“Most people want to have a job where they’re closer to their home,” Human Resources Manager Russ Martin said with regard to hiring and staff compensation. “It is imperative that we have, if you will, the premium to come here, because they are taking time out of their day to come here in that commute.”

The average city of Sedona salary as of March 2025 is $74,219.

Police & Code Enforcement

SPD Support Services Manager Erin Loeffler and Police Chief Stephanie Foley presented council with several different staffing models to explain hiring additional police staff, with one of those models estimating a need for 13 additional officers, another recommending between 69 and 78 officers total and a third estimating a need for 54 officer-hours per day.

“It’s more needed to have 13,” Foley said. “I’m not asking for 13, I’m asking for nine.”

According to the numbers Foley presented, including the newly approved positions, SPD’s FTE count would rise from 40.5 in FY15 to 60.5 in FY26, while the number of sworn officers would increase 30% from 30 to 39.

Council agreed to add nine officers but to fund the positions for only nine months to allow time to fill them.

“Are collisions and injuries and fatalities increasing?” Councilman Pete Furman asked.

“They’re not decreasing to that we already have,” Foley said. “In my opinion, we haven’t reached the level of being out there in enforcement that we need to see a decrease.”

Per the city’s previous budgets, financial reports and SPD data, crime in Sedona declined 32.8% from a peak of 662 arrests in FY07 to 445 in FY24; traffic collisions fell from a peak of 255 in FY13 to 233 in 2023 and 234 in 2024; and traffic citations fell 52.9% from a peak of 4,589 in FY08 to 2,161 in calendar 2024.

“Is it really realistic you’re going to hire all these people when you have vacant positions?” Vice Mayor Holli Ploog asked.

“I do think it’s realistic. We have a waiting list now,” Foley said. “We have not grown to the same level the rest of the city [staff] has.”

Foley also proposed hiring a commercial vehicle inspector who could “put vehicles out of order and not allow them on the road.”

City Clerk JoAnne Cook said that staff’s intention was to hire “a qualified code enforcement officer with experience” without having to train for the STR-specific position. Community Development Director Steve Mertes noted that while the new staffer would work with his department, that person would formally be under the supervision of the City Clerk’s Office.

“I think that this is a position that the public has been clamoring for,” Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella said.

City STR complaint data earlier this year indicated that 8% of residents filed STR complaints.

In Process

As of May 9, the city’s website listed available full-time openings for a maintenance worker, community services officer, court specialist and police officers.

City Manager Anette Spickard said that she was “in the beginning stages of recruitment” to fill the vacant second deputy city manager post, authorized in last year’s budget.

Mertes said that the city will continue to try to fill the vacant senior planner’s position again.

“One of my objectives in fiscal year ’26 is to onboard that coordinator,” Communications Manager Lauren Browne said with regard to hiring an additional tourism coordinator authorized in the FY25 budget. “We’re doing interviews next week.”

“We’re currently working on updating [Kegn Moorcroft’s] job description … to make sure that her job description include being a main point of contact for emails and phone calls that are coming in to all of our inboxes and she can help guide them through the engagement process,” Browne added, a role that Spickard described as “an ombudsman position.”

Cook requested $15,000 to hire a consultant to do a “holistic review” of the city’s more than 1,200 contracts and determine their value to the city, while Housing Manager Jeanne Blum requested $105,000 for a housing strategy consultant “so that we can build out the housing plan that we feel that we need in order to make a comprehensive sort of plan for housing development.”

“We’re looking at getting a temp to help us convert all our as-built [plans] into electronic [format] as well,” Public Works Director Kurt Harris said. Spickard described the position as an internship not adding an FTE that was “too small for the council to debate.”

Harris also requested a $35,000 ongoing allocation for a licensed arborist to help diagnose dead trees to be removed. “We get a lot of pushback from people,” Harris said. “We just want to have that level of data and authority to make that decision.”

“We are in the process of selecting a contractor for [an] Uptown circulator study,” Transit Administrator Amber Wagner said, with the contract to be awarded in early summer.

Less formally, the city is also paying for tourism professionals at Sedona hotels.

“We’re on track to hit about 40 [familiarization trips] just for context,” Tourism Manager Andrew Grossman said. “To date we’ve hosted 130 people within those 40 FAMs.”

Council approves Andante path, improvements – Sedona Red Rock News

The Sedona City Council unanimously approved a $3,032,684 contract with Pronghorn Services of Prescott Valley to construct the proposed shared use path along Andante Drive on April 22, following a last-minute cost increase.

“Approximately $1.5 million goes to the shared use path and the rest of it covers all the other improvements we’ve got planned,” Assistant Director of Public Works Sandra Phillips told the council.

While the city received six bids for the path, the lowest bid of $2,931,804.75 from Summit Construction was incomplete, leading staff to select Pronghorn Services’ bid of $3,018,684 instead. Phillips said that roughly $500,000 of the funding for the project will be expended in fiscal year 2025 and the remainder in FY26.

Originally budgeted at $1,540,000, the proposed 2,480-foot concrete path from State Route 89A to Thunder Mountain Road will include storm drainage infrastructure and one-and a-half-inch conduit. “With the council approving moving ahead or looking to move ahead with wi-fi, this will minimize the impact to this neighborhood,” Phillips said.

The path will be built along the west side of Andante from State Route 89A to just south of Lyric Drive, then cross to the right side of the street before connecting with Thunder Mountain Road. The path will cross Andante at a raised cross walk in order to keep the path within the city’s existing right-of-way for the street. Phillips said such an approach was intended “to minimize the impact to the residents on Andante through not having to request permanent easements” and that the width of the street would not be reduced from its current 24 feet. Approximately eight trees in the city’s right of-way will be removed during construction.

Phillips and Assistant City Manager Andy Dickey explained that the new design for the path and street included both a raised crosswalk and two additional speed bumps to restrict traffic flow, but the contract only included construction of one of the speed humps to keep costs down, although council could choose to add the second by increasing the contract value by $14,000.

“For one hump?” Mayor Scott Jablow asked.

“They’re very complicated to build,” Dickey said.

With regard to the location of the raised crosswalk between inter sections, “because of those vertical differences, you cannot have that transition occur in the middle of an intersection,” Dickey said.

Phillips added that building the path on one side of the road only as originally proposed “increases the price of the project significantly” due to drainage issues.

“It would be more difficult to build the road on the west side of Andante on that northern section,” Dickey said.

“You explained all this to the public and they’re having issues with that?” Vice Mayor Holli Ploog asked.

“We haven’t been questioned about the crossing until recently,” Phillips said, noting that the city’s public outreach had included 353 letters sent to residents in December 2022, another 50-plus mailings in the latter half of 2024 and meetings with between 18 and 20 property owners. “The concern of the crossing never came up in any meet ings that I can recall.”

“There’s one particular resident that had issue with the side of the road that we have the improvements on,” Dickey said.

“Are there still any significant community concerns that require addressing?” Councilman Brian Fultz asked.

“I’m not seeing any open issues,” Phillips said.

Public Comment

“The current and final design has not been made transparent to the residents that reside on Andante,” Duane Gregory said. “The final design was made avail able for residents’ review only a few weeks ago, an inadequate period for meaningful public input … Significant changes are now disclosed that result in many residents now taking issue with the design.” He proposed relocating the crosswalk to the intersection of Lyric and Melody drives for improved visibility for drivers and pedestrians and reducing the width of the path by half to reduce the risk of flooding from a non draining concrete surface.

“A year ago, we discussed many of our concerns with Public Works, only to be ignored and dismissed,” Terry Gregory said. “We had requested that the [Sedona Fire District] fire marshal be brought in on the initial design of this project year ago April. The fire marshal’s office only recently found out about the SUP project existing only three weeks ago. He told me that on the phone. They didn’t even know about this project.” She also argued that the path’s drainage as designed would be insufficient and that “the city has downgraded the floodplain classification during the ongoing drought, allowing quicker, less expensive project approvals.”

Both Gregorys asked the city to pause the project and have it redesigned by an outside firm.

Phillips later said that “there was no significant change from the 60% plans to the 100% plans,” that the increase in drainage from the path would be “very small” and that the SFD fire marshal had known about the project for two or three years.

“The idea of a sidewalk is a good idea, I just don’t think you’re starting it in the right place,” Maureen Fawcett said. “I think it needs to be redesigned. There’s something wrong with that design. Andante is a very strange street.” She added that people “already walk along that street from Circle K. They throw all of the trash right to their left, which would be right in my yard. I don’t want to have all of that trash coming into my yard — unless maybe you want to build me an eight-foot fence or something.”

“My main concern is the crosswalk. I feel like that’s just going to be dangerous,” Cara LeGros said. “I think forcing people to cross the street is a bad idea in general … Also, it’s a better idea to keep the sidewalk on the west side all the way up … If we could have the side walk on the west side when the bus goes down, the kids are on a sidewalk, not in a ditch.”

“I’m thrilled that this is moving forward,” Tracey Delaney said. “It’s been 19 years I’ve been waiting.”

“It’s easy to get stuck on a few of the squeaky wheels and some of the unfortunate circumstances that we might hear of tonight,” Evan Puglia said. “Always keep the larger community in mind with these projects.”

“My concern is the drainage improvements,” Amy Pierce said. “I was wondering if [the crosswalk] was going to have flashing lights, because that’s the most important thing.”

Council Comments

“I just want to make it clear to everyone we’re doing the best we can,” Councilwoman Melissa Dunn said.

“We’re talking about taking 2,840 feet of street with no sidewalk, no nothing, just ditches, and condensing that problem down to a 10 foot crossing. To me this is kind of an easy calculus to make,” Councilman Derek Pfaff said.

“This project really ranks high for me,” Furman said. “Maybe it’s later than it should have been, but we’re getting there.” He added that exposing the community to changes in their mobility patterns is “absolutely the right decision.”

“I don’t see any deficits in this design at all,” Jablow said.

The council then voted unanimously to approve the contract with the additional hump at a cost of $3,032,684. City staff expect construction work to begin this month and be completed by the end of the year.

Divided council approves new lease for Villas on Shelby – Sedona Red Rock News

After a contentious discussion, the Sedona City Council approved a ground lease for the proposed Villas on Shelby 30-unit, three-story apartment complex project by a 5-2 vote during its April 28 meeting, with Vice Mayor Holli Ploog and Councilman Derek Pfaff opposed.

The approval had been scheduled for April 22 but was tabled until the following week due to council concern over available time to review lease changes that will significantly increase the city’s eventual cost to purchase the project.

City Attorney Kurt Christianson said the city had previously approved two similar leases for the city-owned parcel at 2250 Shelby Drive, the first in support of a 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credit application by the developer, and the second in support of a 4% LIHTC application, which would have required the units to remain affordable for 75 years, committed the city to a $2.25 million loan to the project and given the city the option to purchase the project for $100 after 30 years.

“It was on April 3, just two weeks ago, that the city found out that the option to purchase for $100 at year 30 was not going to be able to be in the lease and that the option to purchase would have to be fair market rent,” Christianson said. “It was on April 15 that the city found out that the affordability period could not be for 75 years, that it would have to be only for 30 years, and then it was just on Friday, on April 23, that the city found out that the lease term had to be 99 years instead of 75 years.”

The revised lease to meet LIHTC requirements will allow the city to purchase the complex at market value after 15 years, while retaining the $2.25 million city loan to the project, which will carry an interest rate of 5.83%.

Housing Manager Jeanne Blum said that “close to $20 million in outside funding sources are being contributed” to the project in partnership with investment funds.

The agenda bill for the resolution approving the lease stated the project’s additional financing would include a $5 million loan from the Arizona Department of Housing, $8 million in tax-exempt bond funding and a $7.525 million “construction loan” and $1.365 million “permanent loan” from unspecified investors for a total of $24,140,000.

The agenda bill also stated that staff had asked council to waive $18,924.26 in review and permitting fees and pay $312,245.41 in development impact fees for the project, a total of $331,169.71, in addition to the city loan. The fee waivers and payments would increase the city’s total contribution to $2,581,169.71 and the estimated total project cost to $24,471,169.71.

Developer Matt Shoemacher stated in January 2024 that the cost of the project was then “right at $14 million,” or $466,666 per unit; on the basis of the new project cost, that has now risen to $815,706 per unit.

“We plan on closing and breaking ground in two weeks,” Shoemacher said on April 28, adding that the closing date had been scheduled for May 9 and that bond funding would remain available for roughly 60 days.

Although he was presenting a proposal to build an apartment complex, Shoemacher also said that locals to whom he has spoken “want to be the next homeowners.”

“I don’t think I can support this,” Pfaff said. “We started with the benefit to the city was going to be this … and then in the last few months it’s sort of been whittled down to, now we’re getting this. That doesn’t sit right with me.”

“I have concerns that this project has just gotten a worse and worse deal for the city. I’m probably going to vote ‘no,’” Pfaff added.

“I think I’m begging for two more weeks to see if we can get some outside independent advice of looking at this deal,” Councilman Pete Furman said.

“The affordability was taken out of our control,” Shoemacher said. “It’s a 30-unit deal that has 4% credits with two pieces of subordinate debt. That’s the only way to make a project here work.”

“With this not giving the same terms to the city, there might be a future responsibility to the city … to be having an additional financial contribution, and I think we need to consider that,” Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella said. “I hate kicking the can down the road on this, but I think there is some research that could be done in those areas over the next two weeks.”

“There’s dozens of attorneys that are experts in this that we’ve had conversations with. They’re not going to say anything different,” Shoemacher said. “I don’t know if there is the time to go through another two weeks and then pick it up again,” adding that it would be complicated to reschedule the 75 people involved in negotiating the deal for a different date. “At a certain point the tax credit investor is going to say ‘we can’t change this and this, these are federal opinions, we have to be compliant with federal banking laws.’”

“I was under the impression there was a drop-dead date,” Kinsella said. “Would a date of like the [May] 12th be too late?”

“To be blunt, we haven’t had any of this information until the 11th hour and 59 minutes. We felt the rug pulled out from underneath us in the past month on this where things have changed due to the negotiation points,” Mayor Scott Jablow said. “To me it felt like somebody up there is negotiating in bad faith, because they weren’t giving us a lot of information 18 months ago. When we started, we had a totally different picture of what it was to dealt with LIHTC 18 months ago, and it’s certainly not what we’re getting now.”

“The terms are what the terms are. I don’t think there’s a lot of room left,” Christianson said.

“From a straight business perspective, having terms change this dynamically, and unfortunately negatively, right up to the last minute is really unpalatable,” Councilman Brian Fultz said. “That said, I think that we are wasting time and putting the project at risk to go and seek additional consultation.”

“If we kill this, we’re still going to wind up spending as much money one way or another to get something done,” Fultz added.

“I’m not in favor of the terms, but they are what they are,” Councilwoman Melissa Dunn said.

“Nobody has given me the assurances I need,” Ploog said. “This is not a good deal for the city … We’re talking about a substantial amount of money that we’re going to put on hold every year for the next 15 years that we won’t have access to.”

“Dealing with LIHTC has left a bad taste in my mouth, and I tell you what, I’m going to be letting every city and town that I talk to in this state know that this is the way they negotiate,” Jablow said. “This is wrong.”

“I don’t think we’re urgent for a project,” Jablow added. “I’m going to support this and I’m probably going to kick myself one way or the other.”

The council then voted 5-2 to approve the lease and loan with Pfaff and Ploog opposed.