In the News

City supports staff bid for federal housing grant – Sedona Red Rock News

The Sedona City Council voted on March 11 to support a Low-Income Housing Tax Credit application by HS Development Partners, of Ohio, for funding for a proposed three-story, 36-unit apartment complex that could be built on a parcel the city recently purchased at 2411 W. State Route 89A, along with approving future negotiation by city staff of a lease option agreement for the land if the LIHTC application is successful.

Housing Manager Jeanne Blum said that the site’s proximity to supermarkets, parks and trails would make the application more competitive and noted that the deadline for submission for 9% LIHTC financing is Tuesday, April 1.

“Because of the shortened timeframe and the need to get the application in to ADOH really soon here on April 1, we didn’t feel there was going to be enough time to completely negotiate a land lease agreement right now,” City Attorney Kurt Christianson said. “The only thing council’s approving tonight is this option agreement contingent upon those two things happening: First, they get a 9% award, and second, council and the developer’s able to come to an agreement on the final land lease.”

The city received three proposals for the site in response to its Jan. 2 request for proposals. While HS Development Partners received the highest total score from city staff, Spire Development scored higher in the LIHTC experience and financing feasibility categories.

City Council did not vote to purchase the property until Jan. 28.

The proposed name for the development is “The Flats on Blue Heron,” and the buildings are intended to include equal numbers of one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments, priced at or below 60% of median household income.

“The actual architectural design and the aesthetics of the plan is expected to change,” Blum said.

Developer Matt Shoemacher added that under the LIHTC rules, they can adjust the numbers of differently-sized units as long as the total number of units does not change.

Proposed rents will not be based on the amount of space rented but rather on the income of each individual renter, and are planned to vary between $547 and $933 for a one bedroom unit, $747 and $1,120 for a two-bedroom unit and $863 and $1,295 for a three-bedroom unit.

Blum said that the estimated cost of the project is $19 million, or $527,778 per unit, compared to an estimated $466,666 per unit for HS Development Partners’ 30-unit Villas on Shelby project, which has not yet begun construction. HS Development Partners has already requested a $100,000 “soft loan” from the city on the grounds that it will improve the application’s chances for approval.

“It’s all about getting the points for the application,” Blum said.

“Where are we with the Shelby project?” Mayor Scott Jablow asked. “Tell me why we should move forward with your company … you don’t have a shovel in the ground with the project you have now.”

“We are very close to closing,” Shoemacher said. “All our financing is done. We are working on the final documents with the city of Sedona now. Our plans are being resubmitted back to the city tomorrow morning on some minor modifications, so those are basically the few main items we have left. We expect a ground-breaking, closing, the beginning of April.”

“I’m a little concerned now to give another contract to the same company, quite honestly,” Jablow said.

Shoemacher had previously stated in January 2024 that he expected to begin construction of the Villas at Shelby project in “mid-spring, and then it should be about a 14 month construction process, maybe sooner.”

Sedona Chamber of Commerce President and CEO David Key and Sedona Lodging Council President Cheryl Barron spoke in support during the public comment period, with Barron telling the council about one of her housekeepers, a single parent, who was required by the state to rent a two-bedroom apartment she could not afford in order to retain custody of her son.

“This is why we bought this property,” Councilman Derek Pfaff said. “I’m actually really happy to see we have something on the table this quick.”

“No other decisions have been made on this project except perhaps the number of units,” Councilman Pete Furman said. “With that understanding, I am supporting the project.”

“I think this is a really perfect location for a project of this type,” Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella said.

The council voted unanimously to support the application.

The Arizona Department of Housing will announce successful LIHTC awardees in the state on Monday, June 2.

City votes to buy possible creekwalk parcel from ADOT – Sedona Red Rock News

The Sedona City Council voted unanimously on Feb. 25 to purchase a vacant parcel of land from the Arizona Department of Transportation for the stated purposes of preservation, increased control of the homeless population in the area and the possible development of a future creekwalk.

The commercial-zoned, 3.64-acre parcel is located at 676 SR 179 and the corner of Copper Cliffs Drive.

“When ADOT approached the city to discuss a possible acquisition, it was under the idea that the city would have first right to acquire it as long as a deed restriction went with the property restricting it to a specific highway purpose. We have confirmed with ADOT that this could include either a creekwalk, a creek park or something along those lines,” Deputy City Manager Andy Dickey said. “With the acquisition of the property, the final use that the city decides should go with it will need to be determined.”

Dickey said that the upcoming fiscal year 2026 tentative budget will include a proposal for a study to consider uses for the area, such as “preservation of the property,” and would include public outreach. He added that the city could look at acquiring an additional adjoining ADOT parcel in FY26.

The proposed price for the property was $998,602.50, which was the price ADOT paid in 2008. Dickey said that per the settlement agreement with R.D. Olson Development — through which the council approved the Oak Creek Heritage Lodge — “we would be looking at a 10% reimbursement of the cost of the acquisition” from Olson if the city were to buy the property and use it for a creekwalk. Dickey and City Attorney Kurt Christianson confirmed that the city has not discussed this with R.D. Olson so far.

“If the creekwalk does move forward it would be broken into phases,” Dickey said. “With the south phase we’ve identified as phase one, this would be from the Copper Cliffs area, the south end here, up to the undercrossing at 179 … phase two would be sort of the middle area of the alignment from 179 through the creek area and connecting up just south of L’Auberge Lane. And then the third phase would be the north end, which would run from this area, which is near the Oak Creek Heritage parcel, up to the north end of Uptown.”

Councilwoman Melissa Dunn asked what steps the city would take to prevent people from accessing or camping on the land before it was developed as a park.

“There’s currently homeless folks and things happening on that property that is not desirable,” Dickey said. “We would likely post ‘no trespassing’ on the property and begin to enforce that. We would be looking to keep that element off the property.”

Councilman Derek Pfaff asked if there was a mechanism by which the city could buy out the ADOT restriction on future use of the property, which Christianson said would not be possible, and if not acquiring the property would inhibit the creekwalk project, which Dickey said would become “much more difficult” without that parcel.

Mayor Scott Jablow noted that the commercial zoning would allow for a hotel and that “I would have a problem personally if that were to be done.”

In reply to questions from Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella, Dickey and Christianson explained that ADOT planned to auction the property if the city did not vote to buy it and that the proposed highway-related usage restrictions would only go into effect with a city rather than a private purchase.

“Sedona residents don’t want to go Uptown, as it is too congested,” Mary Wagner said during the public comment period. “The creekwalk will affect the neighborhood for Bear Wallow with sound pollution, with people looking in our windows, with extra trash, scaring away animals big and small with traffic, with the potential of arson, with trespassing, theft and burglary. It will take away our right to have a peaceful enjoyment of our house.”

“It’s like a place where you can get in a inner tube, paddle around, be with your kids all day,” Bear Wallow property owner Ty Weckerly said, discussing the possibility of the public using the creek. “Even if the walkway takes a turn at the hotel, they will see this area, and it is going to be the end for us. It’s not a place that’s going to work.”

“Millions come every year, and all they do is want to take and leave,” Miriam Weckerly said. “They will destroy us. They will destroy our neighborhood. There’s no doubt about it. People, when it’s hot, their children will be in the creek … I’m not sure why the city wants a creekwalk. West Fork, there’s Slide Rock. Those are places for people to go. To maybe cause a fire like in LA to go up that hill from the creekwalk, the city would be gone in no time.” Weckerley also said the city should prioritize “the 13 residents in Bear Wallow.”

“I’m fairly skeptical of the need for the creekwalk,” Pfaff said. He referred to the cost estimates for the project so far as “egregious” and said he might be able to get behind a stand-alone park more easily. “If I recall correctly, the highest level of opposition to anything [in the budget survey] was spending money on the creek walk. Seventy-five percent ‘no.’”

“I hear a lot of fear from my council colleagues about development if we didn’t buy it,” Furman said. “I would ask my council colleagues for some time for our staff to really think about it instead of just reacting in fear.”

“I think it’s a safe route to go to purchase this property,” Kinsella said. “If we don’t own it, we can’t protect it.”

“That’s a really, really sobering number that I can’t wrap my head around over riding,” Fultz said of the budget survey results. “I don’t think we have to own it to preserve it.”

Dunn said that the purchase “has, in my mind, nothing to do with the creekwalk. It has to do with making sure we don’t have homeless encampments over on the creek which can ruin the viability of the creek, besides all the other things, and then of course being able to preserve it by pulling out any trash.”

“Should we turn this down tonight, they have the right to go to auction,” Dunn added.

“I don’t think the community has changed its mind about open space and creek preservation,” Vice Mayor Holli Ploog said. “I think it needs to be cleaned up. I think we need to get the homeless out of there and preserve it.”

“It’s incumbent upon us to be responsible for that land,” Jablow said.

Following an executive session requested by Kinsella for legal advice related to the potential for building a segmented creekwalk, the council voted 7-0 to approve the purchase.

Ranger barn to retain historical character for now – Sedona Red Rock News

Sedona’s historic Ranger Station barn will be allowed to retain its historic character for the time being following a Feb. 11 Sedona City Council decision not to insulate and sheetrock the barn or install central heating and cooling equipment during its renovation as an event venue.

Parks and Recreation Manager Josh Frewin proposed two alternatives for the redevelopment to council. The first staff proposal would maintain the barn’s open air design to preserve its historic character.

“It keeps that barn feel that people are renting it for,” Frewin said. He added that leaving the barn in its current unfinished state would correspond to the Historic Preservation Commission’s preference for the site, reduce expenditure of public funds and increase rental opportunities for the air-conditioned rangers’ house next door, but that doing so might also limit rental opportunities in summer and winter.

The second option, Frewin said, would be to insulate the barn and install central heating and cooling equipment at a cost of roughly $80,000 for the insulation and $39,000 for the equipment. He said this would have the advantages of turning the barn into a year-round rental space more suitable for displaying art or artifacts, but would also cost more, reduce the “rustic and historic feel” of the barn and eliminate rental opportunities for events that would involve having the barn doors open to create an indoor-outdoor setting.

For comparison, Frewin said the Sedona Posse Grounds Hub generated $18,412 in revenue in fiscal year 2024 and $10,960 so far in revenue in FY25, while the Barbara Antonsen Memorial Park generated $8,037 in FY24 and $4,381 in FY25. Frewin told council that city staff shuts off the water to the pavilion from October through March, making it unavailable for use.

Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella asked if council could revisit the decision to install a climate control system later.

Facilities Maintenance Manager Larry Farhat said that staff could proceed with the project for now by simply installing ventilation fans and that there would be no cost difference to waiting, apart from any inflationary change. He also said that the city already has portable evaporative coolers that could be used to provide cooling for summer events.

“It would still provide that cover,” Director of Public Works Kurt Harris said with regard to the swamp coolers. “I think it’s a great option.”

Vice Mayor Holli Ploog asked about the possibility of installing a “mini-split” system, which Farhat agreed could also be done more cheaply and at a later date.

“A mini-split has an exterior presence,” Councilman Brian Fultz said.

Deputy City Manager Andy Dickey said that any centralized climate control system or mini-split installation would require a cut into the barn’s structure.

“If you are going to puncture a hole in the wall for a mini-split or for an HVAC unit, you’d actually have to go to both [the Historic Preservation Commission] and [the State Historic Preservation Office] to receive a finding of effect, which would be a determination after looking at the plans as to whether the planned incursion had any effect on the historical integrity of the building,” Sedona Historical Society president and HPC chairman Nate Meyers said. “Generally HVAC is one of those things that kind of goes through … but the examination does have to be done.”

Staff also proposed refinishing and polishing the barn’s concrete floor, which drew questions from Fultz and Ploog.

“That would be purely aesthetic,” Farhat said, adding that staff could skip that step if council so desired. “We would only save.” He estimated that the cost of refinishing the floor would be between $15,000 and $18,000.

“It’s an investment we wanted to do to make it look nice,” Harris said.

“My preference is option one and not even touch the floor,” Fultz said. “Don’t even both spending money on that. If we’re talking about maintaining its historic character, why even touch the floor?”

“I’d wait to see whether or not it’s used and how it’s used, Dunn said. “I thought it was really cool that it smelled like an old barn, because that’s part of its context.” She suggested the smell would help make the barn an appropriate setting for a Halloween party or line dance.

“Open air isn’t going to suffice eventually, or even initially,” Ploog said, but added that she didn’t want to hold up the project. “I think I would be inclined to support the floor.”

“I don’t want to spend $120,000 to climate control a barn. It’s a barn,” Pfaff said. “Leave it alone, make it look nice … we can always change it later.”

“I too like the old barn aroma,” Furman said. “I think I favor the wait-and-see approach as well.”

“If we want to improve the smell of the barn, I propose we bring in some chickens and goats,” Kinsella suggested. “I think the main thing is that we proceed and get going … I do like the idea of the evaporative coolers.”

“I think we should open it up now, look toward some thing, mini-splits or AC,” Mayor Scott Jablow said.

Council agreed to revisit heating and cooling options for the barn next year after surveying users to see what changes they would like made but to proceed with having the floor polished in the meantime.

City council moves ahead with homelessness grant – Sedona Red Rock News

After a Sedona City Council work session on Feb. 11, it looks like the city may get to keep a state grant intended for a car camp at the Sedona Cultural Park for homeless workers after all and redirect it to a more traditional rental assistance program that will pay to put the homeless in apartments.

Former Housing Manager Shannon Boone told council the grant would likely disappear if the car camp wasn’t opened — voters rejected it in the Proposition 483 referendum in the Nov. 5 election.

Housing Manager Jeanne Blum, Boone’s replacement, described the Housing Department’s proposed Rental Assistance Program, which would provide full or partial rental assistance to individuals who were “literally homeless” over a period of six to 12 months, with the objective of establishing them in permanent housing, “as a viable solution to bring to our community in response to public opinion.”

Proposed Use of Grant

The proposal would redirect the $875,638 in grant funding over two years to a contract with Catholic Charities Community Services. Catholic Charities would be responsible under the contract for managing the program, registering the homeless with federal agencies, hiring and training staff, actively searching for program participants and locating housing for participants.

If the program were to move forward, Catholic Charities would pay participating landlords directly and the city would be reimbursed by the Arizona Department of Housing.

Cami Rasband of Catholic Charities said that the organization tries to work with the same landlords repeat edly and has five or six in the area with whom they have previously worked, while two who have participated in the past are no longer willing to do so.

Community Development Director Steve Mertes later said that “having the money go directly to the landlord will ensure that the money gets used for its intended purpose.”

Councilman Derek Pfaff asked why Catholic Charities had been selected.

Blum responded that it was because the nonprofit is responsible for the state’s homeless registry and already run similar programs in eight counties.

Rasband said that “more than 50% [of funding] is going directly to clients,” and later clarified in response to a question from Pfaff that 10% will be paid to the participating landlords. She expected the per-household spending, based on previous experience in Yavapai County, to be around $5,000.

“Can the money be used to move you out of the area as an option?” Councilman Brian Fultz asked.

“Yes,” Rasband said.

Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella suggested the city could use the funding to move homeless people to other locations in the Verde Valley.

Blum and Mertes did not clarify what conditions participants will be required to meet in exchange for receiving assistance under the heading of “case management,” although items discussed during the work session included federal registration and a possible requirement to obtain medical care.

“This rental assistance program will begin to enhance the operation of this coordinated entry approach in our Verde Valley,” Blum said with regard to the federal registry of homeless individuals. “This will begin to collect information that is useful for our purposes.”

“Do you proactively exit people?” Councilman Pete Furman asked.

“They have a lease in their own name, and so they could not be legally exited unless they violated their lease,” Rasband said.

“If you have somebody who is not abiding by your rules, refusing to meet with you, being a pain in the butt to the landlord … would you push them out of the Catholic Charities program?” Pfaff asked.

“Yes, they can be exited early for noncompliance,” Rasband said.

Mayor Scott Jablow asked if Sedona could make an additional rule to exclude alcohol and drug users, because“that’s counterproductive to the kind of people we want here.” Rasband said that ADOH would have to approve such a rule: “That is not a call we could make.”

Blum said the program would target up to 103 households during the two-year run, particularly employed car campers and van lifers, whose numbers she estimated at roughly 40 as of January, students and senior citizens. “Those with a connection to Sedona in some form,” Blum said. “We absolutely can and will prioritize Sedona residents.”

In response to a ques tion from Furman, Blum said that such a “nexus to Sedona” could include employment, a previous address, school enrollment, family members who were residents or membership in a local church, within the last 90 days.

“What I heard was prioritize Sedona residents,” Fultz said. “Can we absolutely, unequivocally say you must have a nexus to Sedona? … How much control do we really have, versus, oh, well, there’s three, four, five, six exceptions?”

“If we are required by law to have anybody who is a protected class … I need to know that we can prevent that,” Vice Mayor Holli Ploog said.

“We will definitely look into that,” City Attorney Kurt Christianson said.

Jablow said that if access to the program could not be limited, “this program may not move forward.”

Rasband told Jablow that she had no indication there were any homeless people in Sedona who had been displaced by short-term rentals.

Public Comment

“Do something tonight for these seniors,” said Audrey Harris of the Sedona Community Center.

“We’re talking about almost a million dollars to serve 40 people,” Sandra Bocchiechio said. “How much money does your upper management make? … If the program is feder ally funded, cities generally cannot impose strict residency requirements.”

Vice Mayor Holli Ploog later stated that the program funding would be federal money administered by ADOH.

“I stood here a year ago and asked you not to open a homeless park,” said Bill Noonan, who organized the Proposition 483 referendum. “Do you really need any more evidence that the people you’re supposed to represent don’t want you subsidizing homelessness in Sedona? Yet here we are again with the city’s even more disastrous proposal on the table.”

“The fact that Catholic Charities is going to be taking 50% of that amount seems to be extreme,” Dale Casey said.

“It seems the city is obsessed with encouraging a homeless problem,” said Joetta Winter, who called for the city to publish the names of the hotels that have agreed to house homeless individuals under the city’s new voucher program.

“It’s got too many holes in this program and I fear that it might be a magnet,” Rick Brothers said.

“It’s only going forward to get a contract. Let’s do it,” Guy Lamunyon said, adding that he would not want to send $875,000 back to the state.

Council Comments

Pfaff described concerns about Catholic Charities’ overhead as “overblown.”

“I don’t buy this argument that Prop 483 was a mandate from the voting public that we do nothing to help homeless people,” Pfaff said. “I reject that.”*

“I am not moved by campaigns that just pit fears against hope,” Furman said. “If there are holes in the program you see, let us know.”

“It starts to seem as though people don’t want the problem addressed,” Kinsella said. “This is absolutely something that needs to be considered.”

“While I want to like this program, I don’t like it yet,” Fultz said, adding that the city should aim to obtain the support of two thirds of residents before moving forward with the program. “We haven’t had conversations, we haven’t had outreach … I’m not comfortable even with taking this to ADOH to apply.”

Councilwoman Melissa Dunn said it was unnecessary to obtain community support for the proposal and that the program should be discussed with residents after the city has an agreement in place with ADOH.

“We are raw from having made a lot of mistakes, in my opinion, from how we proceeded,” Ploog said. “We are going to be right back where we were a few months ago, causing a huge rift.”

“They’re living in Oak Creek already,” Jablow said.

By a 5-1 vote, council directed city staff to proceed with developing a scope of work and contract for the program, with Fultz in opposition and Ploog abstaining.

“This direction that we’re giving is telling the community that we’re moving forward with it,” Fultz commented following the vote.

* Clarification

The quote by Sedona City Councilman Derek Pfaff was improperly truncated in the print edition. Pfaff’s full quote was “I don’t buy this argument that Prop 483 was a mandate from the voting public that we do nothing to help homeless people. I reject that.”

City to buy West Sedona lot, sell 401 Jordan – Sedona Red Rock News

The Sedona City Council is flipping properties quicker than a short-order cook in a Clarkdale mining camp hurling flapjacks.

Council began its latest venture on Jan. 28, when it considered purchasing from the Dahya Revocable Family Trust of California a 1.8-acre commercial parcel at 2411 State Route 89A, next to Builders’ First Source in West Sedona, for $1.99 million with an estimated $25,000 in closing costs.

Since the city’s more than $18 million in housing reserves are already committed to other projects, the purchase would have to be funded by a transfer from the balance allocated to the Ranger-Brewer roundabout project.

“This potential property has the ability to score high for a 9% [Low-Income Housing Tax Credit] project,” Housing Manager Jeanne Blum said. “This property could support between 36 to 40 [housing] units.”

“The preliminary discussions I’ve had with the engineer tell me that the property looks normal,” Blum said, but added that there was an existing blanket easement on the property.

“This easement that was listed as unspecified,” City Attorney Kurt Christianson explained. “It actually has a defined geographical footprint on the very south side of the lot, and it also, by its own terms, will expire if the three utility poles are ever removed, and they’ve all been cut off, so it appears that it’s an expired easement. And it was on the very south end for electrical uses, so it wouldn’t have interefered with developing the property.”

Blum said the city had already issued a request for proposals to developers interested in building on the property that would run through Jan. 30, while Christianson added that closing on the sale, if approved by council, would be expected for Feb. 25.

Councilman Pete Furman asked if commercial uses on the ground floor of any buildings would be allowed if the property were developed as a LIHTC project.

“It absolutely is possible,” Blum said, although she noted that the commercial elements would have to be financed separately.

Christianson said the difference between developing the property with 4% versus 9% LIHTC funding would be whether the city had to make a contribution to the project between $2 million and $2.5 million versus “a couple hundred thousand,” respectively.

“We’re talking the $35,000, $36,000, $40,000, somewhere in that range,” Blum said with regard to proposed rents for the apartments. Median individual income in Sedona is $33,284. She added that some units for higher-income renters would also be allowed.

Community Development Director Steve Mertes said that the Land Development Code would allow “two stories with a possible of three on one side” and that if it was affordable housing, he would have discretion to allow up to 30 feet in height for the project.

“There’s plenty of commercial. I don’t think we need more,” Councilman Derek Pfaff said.

“This is our commercial corridor and it has a certain look and feel,” Councilman Pete Furman said. “A commercial operation on the streetfront that doesn’t have to exist on the whole first floor might actually be a useful amenity.”

“I would be willing to look at concepts that go above two floors,” Furman added.

“We should leave the possibility open for something on the commercial use on the first floor,” Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella said.

“I’m really uncomfortable with the process,” Councilman Brian Fultz said. “I am not convinced that we should be rushing, rushing, rushing for this round of 9% LIHTC funding on the basis of oh, well, it may get worse, the opportunities may be of lesser value … We’re just shooting at whatever happens to be in front of us.”

“We can go to three stories there,” Councilwoman Melissa Dunn said. “It’s not blocking anybody’s views.”

Mayor Scott Jablow said that the property’s location was “more suited” to housing than the city’s parcel at 401 Jordan Street in Uptown.

Council then approved the purchase unanimously, and followed it up on Feb. 11 with another unanimous vote to sell the city property at 401 Jordan to the Sedona Fire District as a location for a new Uptown station.

Christianson concluded that SFD’s appraisal had established the lot’s fair market value. He also stated SFD had asked for an extended due diligence period, moving the proposed closing date to June 1, and that the city and SFD would also have to discuss future plans to relocate the two electric vehicle chargers at the site.