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

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

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

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

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

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

‘A Strong Hand’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Way Too Fast’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The council then voted 6-1 to make the jump

Arabella Spa to move forward after 4-3 approval – Sedona Red Rock News

After a lengthy appeal process, the Sedona City Council voted 4-3 to approve a development review for Arabella Spa at its April 25 meeting.

The owners of the Arabella Hotel submitted a conceptual application to construct a spa facility on vacant commercial property adjoining the hotel in June 2021, submitted a development review application in May 2022 and amended the application in September and October 2022. The Planning and Zoning Commission denied the application by a 3-3 vote on Nov. 15, and a reconsideration by city council on Jan. 25 also failed 3-3. Tie votes are denials.

Councilwoman Melissa Dunn, who was absent on Jan. 25, had requested a further reconsideration of the application.

Attorney Benjamin Tate, of Withey Morris, appearing for the applicants, responded to previous concerns about sustainability, pointing out that the spa will add five to six EV charging stations and is committing to eliminate single-use plastic. Tate stated that 72% of existing trees on the lot will be retained or transplanted, that the pool filtration systems will reduce energy consumption by 50% and that the pool covers will reduce evaporation by 95%.

“Most of this site will remain undeveloped,” Tate said. The proposed area of development will occupy only 29% of the property.

In response to a question from Councilman Brian Fultz, Tate explained that the spa will achieve a reduction in water use of between 42% and 71% relative to the Nirvana mixed-use development approved for the site in 2008.

Andrew Baird, of Kimley-Horn consultants, discussed revised traffic projections for the spa facility. By using “more site-specific data” rather than general estimates, the project’s latest traffic study concluded that the spa would likely generate 546 average daily trips, not 1,121 as determined by the applicants’ previous study, which was conducted in August 2022.

Baird also noted that the Arizona Department of Transportation concurred with Kimley-Horn’s findings.

“They do not see this as a significant amount of traffic that will impact the intersection [at State Route 179 and Sombart Lane],” he told council.

‘Meets and Exceeds’

Fultz said that Arizona is a strong property rights state.

“I’m not thrilled about anything that might cause additional traffic on 179, but I don’t think that’s a basis for making a decision on this project,” Fultz said. “This project meets the requirements and has the right to be approved.” He also expressed confidence in the Kimley-Horn traffic analysis given how often the city retains that firm.

“You’re on the track toward what we would like to see,” Dunn commented, noting that her concerns had been addressed. “I think it fits into our community character.”

Councilwoman Jessica Williamson stated that people should be able to expect that they have the right to build on their property. “This project meets and exceeds the city’s requirements, and yet we’re saying that even though it meets and exceeds the city’s requirements, we’re not going to do it anyway,” Williamson said. “I don’t think that’s fair. I don’t think that’s right.”

“We can’t dictate who builds and who doesn’t build,” Mayor Scott Jablow said, adding that approvals have to be decided “on the merits of the project.”

“I did support this project and I still do support this project,” Jablow said.

The applicants also provided letters of support from the Hampton Inn, the Sedona Chamber of Commerce, the Arizona Lodging and Tourism Association and the Sedona International Film Festival.

‘Airy-Fairy’

Vice Mayor Holli Ploog told the council she disapproved of the fact that their rules of procedure allow reconsideration at all before disagreeing with ADOT’s analysis and referring to the revised traffic statistics as “airy-fairy.”

“It doesn’t feel legitimate,” Ploog said.

“New information has not been submitted here even though it’s been alluded to,” Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella said. “I have nothing that addresses the concerns that I stated at the Jan. 25 meeting, which included the traffic analysis is not there.” She also wanted to review the applicant’s correspondence with ADOT.

“I don’t know why we would think it’s a good idea,” Councilman Pete Furman said, arguing that the application did not meet the city’s Land Development Code requirements because of the absence of a proper traffic analysis.

“We are in the height of a historic drought, and to consider a spa at this time, I think, is unconscionable and unacceptable,” neighbor Suzanne Gosar told the council. “It’s fine for the city of Sedona to choose open space. We have very little of it anymore.”

The National Integrated Drought Information System released data on Dec. 29 indicating that Sedona and Yavapai County were no longer experiencing drought conditions.

The city of Sedona occupies approximately 11,700 acres of land, half of which is national forest and open space.

“What they’re proposing sounds beautiful, but … it’s like lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig. It’s something we do not want in our neighborhood,” Gosar concluded, asking the council to deny the application.

Neighbor Dennis Lewis complained that having to show up to protest the application multiple times “causes me stress and anxiety.” He told the council that he had a “mild fear of retaliation if this doesn’t pass” and that the development would benefit only the project’s owners, not the community, as well as claiming it would attract day trippers.

Williamson’s motion to approve the development review, allowing the project to move forward, passed by a vote of 4-3, with Jablow, Dunn, Fultz and Williamson in favor, and Ploog, Furman and Kinsella against.

https://skift.com/2023/04/20/why-sedonas-tourism-bureau-fired-its-city-over-destination-marketing/

Why Sedona’s Tourism Bureau Fired Its City Over Destination Marketing

Dawit Habtemariam, Skift

April 20th, 2023 at 10:45 AM EDT

Skift Take

All eyes will be on Sedona, Arizona. If it can fund itself and promote tourism without the city’s dollars, other destinations could potentially follow its example.

Dawit Habtemariam

The Sedona Chamber of Commerce & Tourism Bureau recently ended its tourism partnership with the City of Sedona because the local government wouldn’t allow it to restart destination marketing. The move came in the wake of a November election that saw a mayor and council member voted out and that was seen as a referendum on resident attitudes toward tourism.

“It got to the point where somebody had to make a bold decision,” said city councilman Peter Furman. “The chamber pulled the trigger first.”

The non-renewal of the contract for the next fiscal year represents a broader tale of many places rethinking their spending on tourism promotion. Sedona’s tourism bureau is one of a growing list of entities put under greater pressure from legislators and constituents to redirect funds toward destination management and other community goals. A recent Skift megatrend noted that residents in many parts of the world no longer want to be spectators in tourism.

newspaper

Skift Daily Newsletter

Get the travel industry’s daily must-read email 6 days a week

Tourism Surge, Tourism Slump

Two years ago, the Sedona City Council revised its contract with the tourism bureau, stopping the bureau from spending money on destination marketing.

Before the pause, the tourism bureau spent between $500,000 and $600,000 a year on marketing and advertising per year to attract affluent, longer-staying visitors, said Michelle Conway, CEO and president of Sedona Chamber of Commerce & Tourism Bureau. The promotion expenses were only a minority of its expenditure, with destination management the bulk. Yet for the past two years, it only spent money on destination management.

Not everyone’s happy about the move.

Sedona benefited from a surge in tourism in 2021. But last year, business flagged.

Like other rural destinations, Sedona — a hiking and mountain biking destination — is facing wider competition now that the pandemic is over, international travel is open, and cities are attractive again to tourists.

In 2022, Sedona saw a decline in tourist traffic year over year. Meanwhile, direct competitors like Jackson Hole and Napa Valley haven’t seen the same drop and are eating away at Sedona’s share, Conway said.

Many hoteliers are concerned. Occupancy is now down 6.5 percent from its pre-pandemic level. Average daily rates have been dropping.

Hoteliers had been one of the most active stakeholders years ago in pushing for a 0.5 percent addition to the city’s 3 percent bed tax. The 0.5 percent was originally earmarked specifically for tourism promotion. 

Businesses — 60 percent of which are tourism-oriented — are now “suffering” and “asking for help,” Conway said. Some have seen double-digit drops in revenue. On top of lost visitor spending, business operations costs are above pre-Covid levels.

The tourism bureau thought it was time to restart destination marketing. Yet the Sedona City Council wouldn’t budge. It denied requests to jump-start marketing.

To properly support its business stakeholders, the chamber had to break away from the city, its leaders said. It’s confident it will find alternative sources to support future marketing efforts.

2021: The Turning Point

Something of a split between residents and the tourism industry had been appearing before the marketing pause.

Many locals haven’t been happy with changes in their life due to tourism in the last five years, said Ryan Casago, a resident and local vacation rental owner.

The year 2021 was something of a turning point because of overtourism, said Conway. Like other outdoor destinations during the pandemic, Sedona saw an explosion in visitors, with 3.7 million in 2021, up from its annual 3 million, according to the Sedona Chamber of Commerce.

“We were super successful,” said Furman. “Tourists started to flock to Sedona.”

But there were negative consequences.

The city’s road infrastructure was being pushed “close to its limits,” said Furman.

Traffic congestion, longer wait times at restaurants, and poor habits from new outdoor enthusiasts hit the town of 10,000 people. 

The influx of short-term rental properties has cut available housing and changed the community makeup. Conway said there are now more short-term rental rooms than hotel rooms (2,800), which has added to the angst of the locals.

Affordable and available housing has become harder to come by for large segments of the local workforce, said Furman. 

Such stress on community, physical, and natural infrastructure was a common problem among destinations in 2021 and 2022 in response to unprecedented tourism. What commonly followed were communities questioning the value of tourism promotion. In Jackson Hole, Wyoming, for example, residents have directly questioned its tourism board about ceasing marketing.

Destination marketing tactics like filling in slow seasons and promoting lesser-used trails instead of popular attractions do more harm than good, said Furman. Lesser known trails not set up for parking suffered overcapacity, for example, which pushed the tourist parking to other locations. 

“All those decisions have unintended consequences of pissing off the locals,” he said. 

Tough Choices

The chamber doesn’t have an alternative funding source yet. The details of which funding model to use to replace the loss of bed tax dollars are still being worked out, but the business community said it’s fully behind whatever the chamber does.

Come July 1, when the current contract ends, the chamber will have to do “what it needs to survive,” said Conway. That may include operational and program cuts. Details on who will be responsible for which destination management programs and projects are still being worked out, but the chamber expects to have less on its plate.

With the contract over, Conway is “excited” about the new opportunities for creative marketing now that it won’t have its hands tied. One area of interest is potentially expanding marketing to include the greater Verde Valley that Sedona sits in — highlighting the region’s diversity of towns, wine country, and art communities.

Meanwhile, the city council is looking at hiring a consultant to help internally manage and mitigate the impacts of tourism.

“I don’t see a lot of energy in the near term to do destination marketing,” said Furman.

Tags: arizona, destination management, destination marketing, destination marketing organizations, funding, outdoor tourism, rural tourism, sedona, sustainable tourism, tourism boards, tourism marketing, us travel

Photo credit: Sedona’s tourism agency fired its city council and went its own way to pursue destination marketing. Source: Unsplash.

City council debates freedom of speech, rejects 2 proposed restrictions

By Tim Perry

The members of the Sedona City Council refused to approve proposed changes to the council’s rules of procedure at their March 28 meeting on the grounds that the modifications would interfere with freedom of speech.

City attorney Kurt Christianson proposed three significant alterations to Rule 6, which deals with residents’ interaction with the council. The first amendment, to Rule 6.A.1, would have specified that subjects addressed by speakers during the public forum would have to be “within the jurisdiction of the council.”

The second amendment, to Rule 6.A.3, would have struck out the three-minute standard time limit for speakers and prohibited advocacy for or against any candidate or ballot measure. The third amendment, to Rule 6.B, would have added language stating that “members of the public shall not engage in disorderly, disruptive, disturbing, delaying or boisterous conduct, such as, but not limited to, handclapping, stomping of feet, whistling, making noise, use of profane language or obscene gestures, yelling or similar demonstrations, when such conduct substantially interrupts, delays, or disturbs the peace and good order of the proceedings of the council.”

Council members were not persuaded of the need for all of these changes. Councilman Pete Furman described them as unwarranted.

“I would rather be on the side of free speech than not,” Furman said.

“I find Councilor Furman’s argument for free speech to be compelling,” Councilman Brian Fultz agreed.

“Our citizens think everything’s in our jurisdiction,” Councilwoman Jessica Williamson said, addressing the proposed change to Rule 6.A.1. “The airport’s in our jurisdiction. ATVs weren’t in our jurisdiction, yet we’ve certainly embraced doing something about them, so I’m not sure that I think this is needed.”

“People are going to talk about whatever they want to talk about,” Councilwoman Melissa Dunn commented.

“I’d rather spend three minutes listening to them than spend two and a half minutes trying to cut them off,” Mayor Scott Jablow said.

“This is a problem that doesn’t exist,” Vice Mayor Holli Ploog said.

The council elected to preserve the addition of language to the rule reminding speakers to address their remarks to the council as a whole, but rejected the imposition of a content limitation.

Council also found the language of the second proposed alteration to the rules to be unacceptable, although Christianson argued that it was necessary to conform to state statutes prohibiting the use of city property for electioneering.

“I do not agree with Rule 6.A.3,” Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella said. “I think this is a forum for people to get up and speak about ballot measures, especially because some of them are city ballot measures … I want to know where the public stands on state ballot measures … I think this limits speech. I do not support this additional language.”

“I am really opposed to this, and I do not believe that a court is going to hold us accountable for a member of the public who comes up and speaks for three minutes, who has a right to free speech,” Ploog said.

“I would rather lean toward allowing it than cutting it,” Jablow said.

By consensus, the council decided to reject the new language.

The proposed changes to Rule 6.B, which would have involved the insertion of two new paragraphs, prompted more discussion and a somewhat different approach from council.

“Tighten that language up,” Furman suggested. “Don’t have that list.”

He argued that the language of 6.B.1, governing residents’ behavior, should be as similar as possible to the language of 6.B.2, governing council members’ behavior.

“I like the image of us having an equal playing field. I actually think the city council should be more limited,” Furman said.

Christianson explained that he had used the language from an ordinance of Costa Mesa, Calif., that had been found to be constitutional by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Acosta v. Costa Mesa in 2013. He described the inclusion of a list of prohibited actions as “a bit of a warning to the public … it’s always going to be a case-by-case basis.”

“I support this language change because it makes it clear that it’s only when the conduct disturbs,” Kinsella said. “It clarifies that if somebody does clap, it’s OK.”

“I don’t read it that way,” Furman said. “I think the public would interpret this as we’re telling them they can’t clap.”

Williamson said allowing nonverbal expression at council meetings could lead to proponents of minority views being “booed and hissed,” but acknowledged that such a concern was “overruled by the intent of free speech” and expressed support for Christianson’s choice of language.

“The notion of erring toward free speech has come up multiple times,” Fultz said. “I support Kurt’s assertion that following the Circuit Court language specifically is sufficient.”

“I believe, based on what I’ve heard out of this discussion, that this council wants to increase its commitment to freedom of speech, and I’m very confident with what we have in place right now,” Fultz added.

Furman agreed to accept the language approved by the Ninth Circuit, but reminded the council that the mayor also has the latitude to manage meetings as he sees fit, after which the council voted to accept the proposed changes to Rule 6.B.

The council also approved a modification to Rule 4.A.4.f.1 that brings the city into compliance with state law by removing the mayor’s power to order the closing of any business during a state of emergency.

City council members push pet project – Sedona Red Rock News

The grass is always greener on the other side of the dog park. Or at least it will be once the modifications to the Posse Grounds dog park expansion that the Sedona City Council approved on Jan. 10 go into effect.

The council had decided in September that the proposed surfacing material for the extension area would be decomposed granite for environmental and financial reasons. However, on Dec. 13, Vice Mayor Holli Ploog, supported by Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella, requested that the council reconsider the planned surfacing material.

“I do not have confidence that where we left things at our last meeting was leaving a surface that was going to actually be utilized in the long run,” Kinsella said, making the case that the expanded area of the dog park should be surfaced with grass rather than decomposed granite or artificial turf. “We thought we really need to have another discussion on where this could go in terms of making this a responsive amenity that will be well-utilized.”

“Subsequent to Dec. 13, I visited the Yappy Hour and talked to folks there, and synthetic grass is not a material they would be happy with, nor is it a material our staff would be happy with that,” Ploog added.

“Synthetic grass is a nonstarter,” City Manager Karen Osburn explained to the council. The city staff estimated that the cost of installing 7,000 square feet of artificial grass in the pilot area of the extension would be $140,000, and that the “intensive maintenance requirements” for it in the long term would be prohibitively costly.

“It seems the users prefer a natural grass surface,” Osburn continued. “That was what we had originally proposed, but given the additional approximately 3 million gallons of water usage it would require to maintain that surface, it was previously decided that we would go with a DG-type of surface.”

Advertisement

Given the strong desire for a natural grass surface expressed by users, Osburn suggested that the city could find a way to install grass “without using one drop of additional water. No net increase to any of the water usage that we have today.”

‘Sobering’

Several council members expressed doubt over the proposed water requirements for a grass surface.

“I still am concerned about 3 million gallons of water a year,” Councilman Pete Furman said. “That just doesn’t strike me as something that our ethics want to promote.” He also noted installing irrigation in the area of the dog park would be difficult with bedrock close to the surface.

“It is very sobering thinking about committing to a 3 million gallon usage of water,” Councilman Brian Fultz agreed. He commended city staff for trying to find ways to achieve no net increase in usage.

Mayor Scott Jablow observed that he had originally opposed a grass surface given the expected water requirements, but that if city staff could achieve net zero usage, “I can change my opinion.”

“Trading use isn’t the goal of conservation and responsible water use,” Councilwoman Jessica Williamson said. “Without grass, you would be saving [3 million] gallons.”

“Maybe we let the dogs vote,” Furman remarked. He suggested that the city install grass on half the surface and then “observe for a period of time and see what the dogs actually want and what the people want.”

“I would like to see us do better than no net gain in water use,” Furman added.

Jim Gale, of West Sedona, offered a similar argument during the public comment period.

“I think that we should think about our ethics here,” Gale told the council. “You’re no different than the governors of all the Western states. The Colorado River is drying up; 3 million gallons for dogs that for hundreds of thousands of years romped … we’re using way too many resources … I think we need to think first about people. We live in the desert, so we need to mimic the environment of the desert.”

“No net increase is not sufficient because we’re already using too much,” Gale finished.

As the discussion proceeded, council and staff realized that the 3 million gallons of usage in the agenda referred to the calculated usage for a grass surface that would cover the entire 20,000-square-foot area of the extension, not the 7,000- square-foot pilot area. On that basis, the water usage for a grass surface on the pilot area would consume about 1 million gallons per year.

The Motions

After making an initial motion to reconsider the previous decision, Kinsella proposed opening the dog park extension with a temporary sand surface, with the expectation that a grass surface would be installed later. Kinsella’s motion added the requirements that the city achieve a net decrease in water usage, that Yappy Hour continue at the softball field until grass is installed, and that any other changes be brought back to council for approval. Kinsella changed “sand” to “composite surface” after discussion.

Furman remarked that he was not comfortable setting a requirement for a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining a much lower bar for water usage reductions. Kinsella asked him if he would be comfortable with a 10% decrease in water usage.

“No,” Furman replied.

Ploog seconded the motion after Kinsella formally offered it, and Jablow joined them in supporting it, but the motion failed 3-4.

Furman then moved to install dual surfaces at the extension area and reconsider the matter in two years based on usage. He received no support for this motion and withdrew it.

Kinsella responded to Furman’s concerns by submitting her motion again and changing the requirement for no net increase in water usage to “a 20 percent decrease in city water use.” Furman seconded this motion. Ploog clarified that the baseline for determining this water savings would be park-related water usage only, not city-wide water use. Kinsella accordingly rephrased the motion to refer to recreational water use.

Kinsella’s final motion to use a composite surface temporarily until grass is installed in the pilot area passed the council 6-1, with Williamson dissenting.

How Much is that Dog Park?

The city of Sedona spent $27,433 on the dog park in Fiscal Year 2011. In FY 2014, it budgeted $5,000 for new gazebos and picnic tables. The city’s FY 2016 budget included spending of $18,120 in that year and $152,510 in the coming fiscal year for dog park upgrades, while the 2017 budget increased the dog park spending allocation to $203,010.

The FY 2018 budget specified $292,983 for dog park improvements, which included carryover from previous years. It also projected an additional $330,000 in spending for more improvements in FY 2024. The future years’ estimate increased to $360,000 in the FY 2019 budget. On Sept. 13, 2022, the city voted an additional $155,000 in funding to expand the area of the dog park.

The city’s total budgeted spending on the dog park through FY 2024 comes to $807,983. In addition, dog enthusiasts raised $37,000 toward the park’s construction in FY 2015.

According to city communications manager Lauren Browne, actual costs so far have been $346,500. The original buildout cost $279,200, which was split between $37,600 in design costs and $241,600 in construction costs, while the latest expansion cost $67,300.