In the News

Council returns ADOH homelessness grant – Sedona Red Rock News

The Sedona City Council’s proposed rental assistance program is off the table after the council voted unanimously on April 8 to return the Arizona Department of Housing grant originally intended to fund the planned car camp for homeless workers at the Sedona Cultural Park to ADOH to be redistributed to organizations in the Verde Valley.

Council had previously discussed a city staff proposal for reallocation of the $875,638 grant on Feb. 11, which would have redirected the funding to a two-year program run by Catholic Charities Community Services to provide rental assistance to homeless individuals or pay to move them out of the Sedona area.

“Council, during the discussion, wanted to clarify the eligibility requirements to explore potential impacts on Sedona homeless students,” Housing Manager Jeanne Blum said. “School students fall under a different category … they are not necessarily experiencing literal homelessness, which is what this funding needs to target … some of the homeless students who are in Sedona may not qualify for this particular program.”

“Staff was directed to come back with an amended scope of services that was kind of Sedona-specific, to serve the local community, and make sure that the persons that we were served had a verifiable Sedona connection,” Blum continued. “There were some challenges with that, because it reduces the number of households that are being served and it’s pretty much unlikely the city will expend the full grant. Additionally, the Department of Housing may prefer a broader service area.”

The alternative option, Blum said, would be “to request a transfer of the grant to a qualified nonprofit,” which would “expand housing opportunities for more people, and it would also ensure data collection for future policy decisions.”

“Staff recommendation is to transfer the grant to a qualified nonprofit,” Blum concluded.

In discussion with ADOH, “we learned about this distinction between the two definitions of homelessness that would not allow us to serve the students at the school district,” City Manager Anette Spickard added. With regard to staff’s estimate that the amended scope of work would only affect about 25 families, instead of the 103 estimated in the original proposal, “ADOH was a little concerned that would be too small and not meet the legislature’s intent for this grant.”

“Our grant would actually just be transferred back to ADOH for them to administer directly,” Spickard said. She clarified that council could ask staff to set up a separate city-funded program to benefit homeless students.

Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella asked what would happen to the unexpended funds if the city was unable to spend them all due to a reduced scope of work.

Since it was a reimbursement grant, “it just stays with the state,” Blum said.

“Do we have reason to think that Catholic Charities will still be the qualified service provider when the grant is reassigned?” Kinsella asked.

“My understanding is that they would work with them,” Spickard said. “They would still have this network of referrals happening.”

Councilman Brian Fultz asked staff to assess ADOH’s response to the council’s desire for “this really strong nexus.”

“They were a little lukewarm about our original request to scale it down to just the Sedona nexus because it doesn’t meet the full intent of the legislature,” Spickard said. “I don’t think they would accept the transfer and then only spend the money on Sedona nexus people. I think they will do Verde Valley region because that’s the underserved community in the state.”

“So you’re saying a nexus still exists, just the nexus is a wider area of the region,” Kinsella said. Spickard and Blum agreed.

“These are all very soft terms,” Councilwoman Melissa Dunn said. “Is there an assurance that Sedona will be considered as part of the Verde Valley?”

“In the conversation with ADOH staff, they did state clearly to me that when we request the transfer of the grant, that we could identify some terms for that, and they threw things out like, you will get data and reporting that you request, things like that, which tells me that we have some influence on what that new contract’s going to look like with Catholic Charities,” Spickard said.

Public Comments

“I do support you all looking at a regional solution to a regional challenge,” Sedona Chamber of Commerce President David Key said. “I think that feels appropriate.”

“The rental assistance funding … would have a direct and immediate impact. It could help families in our program move more quickly into permanent housing,” said Elizabeth Slane of Hope House of Sedona. “Anything that help the homeless in Sedona I think need to be considered.”

“I support the idea of moving these funds either the original plan, which is, what, phase two, where we contracted with Catholic Charities, or we give to ADOH and have them allocate it,” Jo Martin said. “We are relying on the administration of the state to give us help … We’re trusting the state to help our community instead of us maybe having more control over those funds.”

“The grant is a solution in search of a problem,” Bill Noonan said. “It’s a bit of an affront to the democratic process that the city reconsidered applying for this grant or that the state of Arizona is still trying to foist it on us through this NGO.”

Council Comments

“Nobody denies that there are homeless people here, but there is a perspective about whether it is a big monumental problem deserving of big government resources or not, and when we’ve spent no money, essentially, on it, to go from that to $875,000 in two years is a pretty big ramp-up,” Fultz said. “I support moving that money back to ADOH. I certainly hope that we will provide direction that says that any recipient needs to have a strong nexus then to the Verde Valley so it’s not a ‘come one, come all,’ it’s not an incentive for van lifers to participate.”

“I would go with moving ADOH money further into the region,” Dunn said. “I would like for us to have some kind of assurance that people who are in Sedona have a way of getting resources, whether it’s at the library or wherever.”

“I also support moving the grant from Sedona to an NGO and serving the Verde Valley,” Vice Mayor Holli Ploog said. She added that the number of people to whom the original plan proposed to provide assistance “was more than we had in Sedona to serve.”

“I support the money going back to ADOH … the homelessness here is a regional issue,” Councilman Derek Pfaff said. “I don’t think we attach strings to it. We’re trying to have it both ways.”

“Regional solutions are the right approach,” Councilman Pete Furman said. “We need to be good partners in the Verde Valley on this issue.”

“I think it’s important to make sure the full amount of money that’s available from the state can be utilized,” Kinsella said.

“I don’t support putting restrictions on ADOH. They know what they’re doing, they do it best,” Mayor Scott Jablow said. The council then voted to send the money back.

Sedona City Council votes 6-1 to annex 3,422 acres – Sedona Red Rock News

In five minutes, Sedona got about 30% bigger — or rather, it will on Thursday, April 24, when the annexation of 3,422 acres west of town takes effect.

The Sedona City Council approved the annexation ordinance in a 6-1 vote, with Councilman Pete Furman opposed, on March 25.

City Attorney Kurt Christianson called council’s attention to “one little unique bit of information that came out during the preparation of the ordinance.”

“As required by state law, all the area annexed will be zoned to the city’s most — basically the same zoning the county has. It can’t be any less or more restrictive, we need to match it as best as we can,” Christianson said. “I thought originally that all the property was the county’s RCU-2A, so two units an acre of residential. Turns out this one little section right here by the Cultural Park is basically one unit an acre instead of the two units an acre. So this little square right here, this is the section 16, town ship 17, north range 5, shall be zoned city of Sedona RS-35, so that corresponds pretty well. The whole rest of the annexation area will automatically be zoned per the ordinance RS-70.”

“That’s kind of a lot to say about nothing because none of this can be developed, necessarily,” Christianson added.

He also noted that staff would likely ask for the city’s wastewater treatment plant to be rezoned to Community Facilities at some point in the future.

“It’s a little bit strange, but we’ll probably move the city limit signs,” Christianson said. “We’ll probably move it and-or duplicate it, and put another one on [State Route] 89A right by the wastewater treatment plant.”

There was no public or council comments and no discussion prior to the vote.

The annexation will become effective 30 days after the approval of the ordinance, which Christianson said would be April 24.

Council plans three Uptown kiosks, removal of trail information – Sedona Red Rock News

The Sedona City Council approved a new contract with the Sedona Chamber of Commerce for operation of the Uptown Visitor Center on March 11, as well as authorizing city staff to spend $115,000 installing three information kiosks.

Visitor Center

City Communications Manager Lauren Browne said that the city’s Tourism Advisory Board had recommended that the physical Visitor Center be maintained permanently on the basis of the existing 80-20 funding model split between the city and the chamber, respectively, as well as suggesting the introduction of other elements such as “a curated trail map to assist with visitor management” and “an artificial intelligence chatbot.”

“To me it’s very impersonal,” Mayor Scott Jablow said of the chatbot concept. “I hate the AI.”

Browne also said that city staff were in the process of having the Visitor Center wrapped with the city’s branding information, for which the city is paying.

The Visitor Center’s bed tax funded expenses budget for FY25 was $426,535, of which the city’s share was $341,228, while the proposed FY26 contract put the center’s budget at $439,300 with a city contribution of $351,440. The contract also gave the city the option to renew for FY27 for $358,892.

The city’s FY25 tourism and economic initiatives budget was $2,097,730.

Chamber president David Key attributed the budget’s growth to factors including building maintenance, an expected increase in utility costs due to Arizona Water Company’s proposed 48% rate increase and salary increases. “We’ve got good people, we’re going to keep them and we’re going to keep them happy,” Key said.

Key said that the Visitor Center saw 156,713 walk-in visitors in fiscal year 2024 against a goal of 150,000, with volunteers providing a total of 7,076 hours to operate the center for 57 hours per week. For FY25 so far, the center has seen 75,051 visitors, or 50% of its goal, compared to 43% of the goal at the same time last year.

“We moved from a mortgage interest reimbursement style to a rent, and that rent of $25,500 for a year for a prop erty of that size in Uptown is really a great rate, to say the least,” Key said. “We moved from two full-time staff to one part-time director, eight part-time people” as well as about 30 volunteers. Citing information provided by Sedona Historical Museum Executive Director Nate Meyers, Key noted that the museum saw an estimated $22,000 in revenue from admissions and gift shop sales in 2024 attributed to Visitor Center referrals.

Key added that part of the center’s community value would derive from its promotion of visitation that was “eco-conscious, conscious of the residents here.”

Tourism Manager Andrew Grossman connected the role of the Visitor Center to city efforts to control visitors.

“We want to be able to control the narrative about how we want you experience the expectations that we set around responsible and respectful use,” Grossman said. “That’s really what our marketing campaigns are designed to be.”

“The challenge is that it’s a lot of decentralized actors that are the ones that are sharing information to visitors,” Grossman continued. “How we present information to get you to come to Sedona should reflect the similar type of information you get when you arrive, and allows us to really kind of control to make sure that the presentation is what we want. We’ll continue to lean into this idea of reputation management.”

“How can the [Sedona] Lodging Council, and vis-a-vis the private sector industry here, the tourism businesses, share that communication?” Grossman asked, discussing city staff’s initiatives to get hotels to share city messaging. “It becomes the role of the private sector to communicate after the bookings.”

‘Giant Cellphones’

Grossman presented the council with a proposal to install two or three digital information kiosks — which Councilman Brian Fultz described as “giant cellphones” — in “priority visitor locations” in Uptown to promote city messaging and steer tourists to certain locations.

“Some folks were engaging with it, but then they would come up to the counter to validate what they were getting from the kiosk, so it didn’t really save time,” former chamber President Michelle Kostecki told council in April 2024 when discussing possible kiosks.

“If we can create a more informed visitor that understands our expectations of them, understands our recommendations for how we would curate this place, ideally they’ll move faster or with less friction,” Grossman said. “A digital kiosk strategy helps us not only communicate that we have additional touch points but gives us a way to report on the actual engagements.”

Grossman said digital kiosks displaying trail maps would allow city staff to determine which trails are displayed on those maps.

“We can essentially curate our own custom maps within AllTrails, so we can define which trails show up on the map,” Grossman said. “We know that the social trails are on AllTrails. I met with them this month, and I understand that there’s a way that we can help getting a vendor on board to go into Open Street Maps to recategorize the presentation of social trails or non-system trails, and that essentially deprioritizes them on this.”

“Hypothetically, I can toggle on and off trails throughout the day,” Grossman said. “We can control the narrative around what we want you to hike, and we can share that with everybody, and we can change it in real time.” Grossman also said that he was negotiating with map providers to remove social trails from their systems entirely and suggested the idea of including a large photo of Devil’s Bridge with each kiosk for tourists to take photos with instead of hiking to the formation.

Social trails are regularly used shortcuts or detours off designated trails.

Comments

“None of us could imagine having visitor services in Sedona without a physical Visitor Center,” TAB member and Keep Sedona Beautiful President Craig Swanson said.

“Visitors will benefit from quick access to information through these tools while still having the ability to talk with a friendly, knowledge able volunteer and staff at the Visitor Center,” Lodging Council President Cheryl Barron said.

Chamber Visitor Services Director Victoria Latunski said international visitors especially appreciate a face to-face experience with Visitor Center volunteers.

“Personally, I’m resistant, as I do not love technology,” Dyanna Nichols said. “Even though I am opposed, I feel that it’s a great move for our city.”

Fultz said he felt compelled to respect the TAB’s recommendations and would support both proposals.

“Mayor, the kiosks are not for you, Mr. I-don’t-like AI-chatbots,” Fultz said. “I think it’s pretty cool.”

“I will not complain about $30,000 giant cellphones now,” Fultz added.

“I have never been a fan of the Visitor Center in Uptown,” Councilwoman Melissa Dunn said. “I’m willing to fund it for another year because I would love to get more information about what people are actually doing in the Visitor Center.”

“Recently I was overseas and they’re everywhere, kiosks,” Vice Mayor Holli Ploog said. “I support the one-year extension … and the technology now.”

Councilman Derek Pfaff said that after thinking cutting the Visitor Center could save money, “I am definitely in favor of funding it for another year. I think it’s great for people to have the one-on-one.”

“The kiosks I feel differently about,” Pfaff added. “The technology already exists right on our phones. I think we could accomplish the same thing with signs advertising our website.”

Councilman Pete Furman said he was “uncomfortable” with the Visitor Center giving business or restaurant recommendations instead of encouraging visitors to stay longer or directing them, but would support the contract renewal as well as the kiosks.

“I think this is the way of the future,” Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella said of the kiosks. “This actually might entice people to go to the Visitor Center.”

“In Uptown I think the kiosk is important,” Jablow said.

Council approved the chamber contract by a 7-0 vote and the kiosk purchase by a 6-1 vote, with Pfaff opposed to the latter.

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.