In the News

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.”

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.”

Schnebly roundabout underpass cost rises another $201K – Sedona Red Rock News

During its Aug. 13 meeting, the Sedona City Council gave an additional $201,938 of public money to J. Banicki Construction, the firm hired to build a pedestrian underpass under the Schnebly Hill Road roundabout, to complete lighting and handrail work on the sidewalk.

Agendized as a consent item, the change order was pulled for a discussion by Councilman Pete Furman.

At the time the City Council approved the contract in April 2023, construction was planned to be completed in February 2024. Associate city engineer Bob Welch did not specify how much of its 25% profit on the contract Banicki would be expected to return to compensate the city and the public for the six-month delay, instead stating that damages will only be assessed after several more weeks elapse.

“We have a hard-fast date of Sept. 6 that we’re holding the contractor to,” Welch said. “There are liquidated damages associated with not making that date.”

Sedona Director of Public Works Kurt Harris later explained that the project had already been subject to eight previous change orders, three of which had extended the project’s soft completion date by a total of 156 calendar days. Including an additional 59 days authorized by the current change order, total delay through Sept. 6 will be 215 days.

All three time extensions were related to obtaining an Arizona Department of Environmental Quality permit for portions of the work due to Oak Creek being classified as a Unique and Outstanding Water of Arizona, regulated by ADEQ within Arizona Department of Transportation’s right of way.

“There are no completion date deadlines or associated penalties, but an agreed schedule for tracking purposes,” Harris said.

Harris added, “Change orders work both ways to protect the owner and the contractor when problems or discoveries literally arise during construction.”

“The first change order on this project has to do with the visionary lighting package,” Welch said. “[That] has to do with LED lighting that is compliant with our current lighting standard that wasn’t part of the specifications originally.

“Component two has to do with underground electric service conduit … The initial thoughts on where this was and where we were coming from differed from ultimately what APS was requiring.

“Component number three has to do with the concrete wall and barrier color … We added a component color.”

“The next component for additional retaining curb and handrail … we fell slightly short with that under the plans,” Welch said. “Component six had to do with a full-depth saw cut and seal. Originally we were utilizing an expansion joint-type material … to avoid premature crackage in that pathway, we did an isolation saw cut to separate those two systems.”

“These changes were necessary according to staff,” Deputy City Manager Andy Dickey said. “These changes were not errors attributed to our design consultant.”

“You learn as you do things,” Furman said.

Council approved the additional expenditure of public funds unanimously.

“The completion date is scheduled for Sept. 6,” Harris stated in an email on Tuesday, Aug. 20

Council chooses Phoenix firm for new Cultural Park master plan – Sedona Red Rock News

On July 9, the Sedona City Council unanimously voted to awarded a $254,242 contract to Dig Studio of Phoenix to create a new master plan for the Sedona Cultural Park. A total of five firms replied to the city’s request for proposals, none of which were based in Sedona.

“We will propose a series of concepts, including housing and mixed-use development types and adaptive reuse possibilities, streetscape, mobility, connectivity and public realm improvements, and trail and national forest access points design,” Dig Studio’s scope of work for the contract stated.

The contract will run through Aug. 5, 2025. The firm will be responsible for conducting the city’s proposed public outreach program regarding the park’s future development and producing three alternative concept plans “that will be vetted through the public and then brought to P&Z and finally to council,” Community Development Director Steve Mertes said.

“Is this going to be one big project? Is it going to be phased? Is it going to be parceled out in sort of multiple littler projects?” Councilman Pete Furman asked.

Mertes explained that the master planning process would not be part of the development process, but was instead intended to make development easier through “understanding what uses the public is looking for.”

“Is it going to be one RFP to build all the candy?” Furman asked.

“We can’t tell that at this point,” Mertes said.

“There has been some interest expressed around public facilities,” Councilman Brian Fultz said. “Do you anticipate we would get ballpark figures on what it would cost to do certain grandiose things with this land?”

“Will we get absolute numbers? Probably not. Will we get ballpark numbers? Yeah, I would assume so,” Mertes said.

Fultz asked if questions related to the proposed uses for the Cultural Park would be included on the city’s next budget survey in the spring of 2025. “Timing-wise, that’s not a bad time,” Fultz suggested.

“I think it’s a very good idea,” Mertes answered.

The city’s 2022 budget survey included a question on residents’ preferred future uses for the Cultural Park. Of the 11 options offered to respondents, four were various housing uses. Reopening the Georgia Frontiere Performing Arts Pavilion as a performance space was excluded from the city’s survey.

At the time, respondents ranked preserving the park as open space as their highest priority; open space preservation scored almost twice as high as any proposed housing use. Of the 185 written comments submitted in response to the “other” option on the questionnaire, 62, or 33%, called for the restoration of the park as a performing arts and music venue.

“Is there any concern you have that the public participation process isn’t robust enough, knowing how much the public likes to participate?” Fultz continued. “I expect there will be epic level of interest in engagement.”

“We’re having three [meetings] in a one-year process,” Mertes said. “This does and will give more than enough possibility for the public to provide their input.”

The scope of work for the contract calls for Dig Studio to have 26 biweekly design meetings with city staff, plus a kickoff meeting; eight stakeholder meetings with stakeholders defined primarily as city council members, city staff and adjacent property owners; two additional meetings with the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission; two public meetings to take public comment; and one public meeting to inform the public of their conclusions.

Then-Vice Mayor Scott Jablow stated at the time of the park’s purchase for more than $23 million that “the public outreach that’s going to be done is going to be extensive,” while thenCouncilwoman Holli Ploog stated that “there is no way this land will be developed without intensive public participation.”

When asked on Aug. 7 if she was confident that the limited number of public meetings would meet the definition of extensive and robust, City Manager Anette Spickard said, “I think so. I am positive that we will allow people to provide us input throughout. If they want to send things in during that whole process, there are opportunities always to provide input to us.”

“If we just said there’s only two public meetings but 30 staff meetings, that wouldn’t really characterize it since we’re going to be doing a lot of different types of outreach to try to capture as many people’s thoughts as we can, recognizing that everybody can’t come to an in-person meeting,” Spickard added. “Obviously there’s groups out there that have very specific ideas that they think should happen, and I’m hoping that they provide their input in this process.”

The contract and scope of work make no reference to the existing amphitheater or to potential arts and culture uses for the property long sought by the community. Spickard did not say if consideration of options for reopening the venue would be included in the planning process.

“I’m not going to close the door on anything or promise anything,” Spickard said. “This is supposed to be an open process from start to finish without any preconceived assumptions. It depends on what they gather from the public input … I think we’re open to all suggestions about uses for that property and ways they can complement each other.”

Spickard also said that the proposal to begin constructing apartments on the northeast corner of the property prior to any planning being done will now be “waiting for the master planning.”