Recently many questions have come up from Sedona citizens regarding the possibility of a Route Transfer of SR 89A in West Sedona and what it means to the City. This information is part of the City efforts to keep the community informed about the reasons why the City is considering a Route Transfer. The SedonaEye.com thanks the office of the City of Sedona Manager, Tim Ernster, for this article and its periodic updates: Today, February 22, 2011, the Sedona City Council will hold its vote on the 89A turnback issue in the Sedona City Hall Council Chambers. The public is welcome to attend.
The City of Sedona held open houses at various locations and staggered gathering times. Neighborhood listening sessions were held, and as part of the public outreach and participation, City Council meetings were scheduled and held in February 2011. All residents have been encouraged to attend the public sessions and meetings. The City offered a poll option on its SedonaAZ.gov web site. Every attempt has been and is being given to hear and address the community on the SR89A route transfer issue.
The City of Sedona and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) have been working together since 2006 to address safety concerns on State Route 89A. While the City and ADOT do not agree on the type of safety improvements to install, both agencies have supported continued discussion of a route transfer to allow the City to explore alternative safety improvements.
The Sedona City Council passed a resolution on August 10, 2010 directing staff to initiate fact-finding and enter into good faith negotiations to gather detailed information about the financial implications of a route transfer and negotiate conditions of a route transfer for the Council’s consideration.
Sedona City Council
The City also hired CivTech, a consulting firm specializing in traffic engineering and transportation planning, to evaluate the SR 89A Route Transfer Study and identify alternative safety improvements.
On November 23, the Sedona City Council was presented the results of the CivTech Engineering Study regarding the cost for constructing alternative pedestrian, vehicular, and bicycle safety improvements for SR 89A in lieu of continuous roadway lighting (CRL) proposed by ADOT. The lighting is dark sky compliant and the poles are the same design style as those installed at the roundabouts on SR 179 – only 5 feet taller. Also, Staff briefed the City Council on the status of negotiations with ADOT for a possible Route Transfer of SR 89A to city ownership. The following questions and answers relate to the new information presented to City Council on November 23rd:
Q: How much is ADOT offering to provide in financial support for the City to take over operation of SR 89A?
A: The total package being offered by ADOT is $15,435,500. This includes $8,010,150 in cash, paid to the City by June 2011, and $7,425,350 in federal funds for identified capital projects, provided no later than June 2015. The offer includes funding for annual operations, maintenance costs, and road improvements. The federal funding would be provided for repaving the road, installing alternative safety improvement measures, a road enhancement project, and a traffic signal at Andante. In addition to annual maintenance and operation costs, the money would be provided for City identified improvements to SR 89A, and a portion of a future re-paving project estimated to be necessary in ten to fifteen years.
Q: How much will the City have to pay to maintain the road over the next 10-15 years?
A: Funding provided by ADOT should be sufficient to cover the City costs over the next fifteen years. Currently, the City and ADOT each spend approximately $35,000 annually for maintenance of SR 89A in West Sedona. The $15,435,500 described above includes $75,000 in annual funding for operations and maintenance costs for a fifteen-year time period. The total amount of ADOT funding for maintenance and operations costs for the fifteen-year period is $1,125,000. This funding would be paid through an up front cash payment by ADOT and should be sufficient to cover the City costs over the next fifteen years.
Q: Do you really think that ADOT will install the continuous roadway lighting (CRL) if the City does not approve the route transfer?
Q: What did the CivTech Engineering Study discover and recommend regarding alternative safety improvements and costs?
A: The CivTech Report indicated that minimum alternative safety improvements could be constructed for approximately $1,600,000 that would provide a comparable level of safety to CRL. The recommended minimum improvements include medians with pedestrian barriers in two locations (from Soldiers Pass to Mountain Shadows, and from Rodeo Road to Andante), lighted pedestrian crossings, bicycle lanes, additional signage, and pedestrian activated crossings. CivTech also identified additional traffic safety measures for future consideration and study that would provide even higher levels of safety. These included additional medians, roundabouts, and pedestrian lighting. If the City finalizes a transfer, it should install at least the minimum safety improvements.
Q: Where would the money come from to build the alternative safety improvements?
A: ADOT has offered the City $2,800,000 in federal funding to construct alternative safety improvements. These funds are part of the $7,425,350 in federal funding explained in a previous question. The $2,800,000 would be sufficient to cover the $1,600,000 in minimum alternative safety improvements identified in the CivTech Report and described in the previous question. In addition, there are no restrictions on the $8,010,150 in additional funds provided by ADOT as long as the funds are spent for transportation purposes in the corridor. These funds could be used for alternative safety improvements and/or a portion of the future repaving project.
Q: How will the medians proposed in the CivTech Report affect businesses along SR 89A in West Sedona?
A: Strategic medians will affect left-turning movements in the areas where they are placed and may create some inconveniences to the public, but drivers have historically compensated for medians and ultimately have found alternative routes to reach their destinations. Some studies indicate that medians do not necessarily have a detrimental effect on businesses and often have a positive effect. Medians have also proven to reduce accidents in communities where they have been installed.
A: Yes. At the November 23 meeting, John McGee, ADOT’s Executive Director for Planning and Policy, made it very clear that the State will proceed immediately with installation of the continuous roadway lighting if the City does not approve the Route Transfer. ADOT has been consistent in its position regarding the installation of the lighting in all of its discussions with the City during the last nine months.
Q: Will roundabouts be installed in West Sedona similar to SR 179?
A: Roundabouts were listed as an additional safety measure for future consideration and evaluation and were not included as part of the $1.6 million in minimum safety improvements identified by CivTech. No decisions have been made regarding the safety improvements that will be actually built. Should the City decide to approve the route transfer, a citizen participation process will be conducted and feedback solicited from the community prior to any decisions being made about alternative safety improvements.
Q: If the City approves the Route Transfer, when will the alternative safety improvements be constructed and when will ADOT complete the repaving project and Andante Signal?
A: First, it will be necessary for the City to hire an engineering firm to develop a design concept for the safety improvements. The City would then conduct a citizen participation process to reach a community consensus. It would most likely take 18-24 months or longer to complete the engineering design and citizen participation process. The $2,800,000 in federal funds for the alternative safety improvements is available to the City until June 2015. ADOT will start the repaving project no later than the spring of 2013. The Andante traffic signal would be constructed in 2011.
Q: If the City does not approve the Route Transfer, when will ADOT start construction of the continuous roadway lighting, Andante Signal, and the repaving project?
A: ADOT has informed the City that construction of the continuous roadway lighting, the Andante traffic signal, and the pavement preservation project would begin in late spring or early summer of 2011 and be finished in 2012 if the City does not approve the Route Transfer. Note the pavement preservation project includes striping for bike lanes.
Q: Which approach will give businesses the best break from the constant construction we have faced for most of the last 10 years?
A: As stated above, if the City does not accept the Route Transfer, construction of CRL and repaving will begin by spring or early summer of 2011. If there is a Transfer, repaving will be delayed for two years, until the spring of 2013. Construction of alternative safety improvements will also take at least two and perhaps three years before construction begins.
Q: How will the City guarantee that ADOT honors a Route Transfer agreement?
A: It is extremely important that the City receive the necessary assurances from ADOT in the Intergovernmental Agreement that it will adhere to the terms of the agreement. If the City does not receive those assurances, it will not approve the agreement. Discussions between the City and ADOT are in process.
Sedona Hwy 179
Q: If the City approves the Route Transfer, how far into the future will the funds provided by ADOT cover costs associated with owning and operating the road?
A: Over the next fifteen years, the City’s local costs should be minimal unless unanticipated issues arise or improvements far exceed the minimum proposed by CivTech. The ADOT funding is sufficient to cover the historical maintenance and operation costs of both agencies projected over the next fifteen years. The funds will also pay for a portion of a future repaving project. After fifteen years, the City will be solely responsible for costs associated with the road.
Q: How will the City pay for road maintenance and operations costs beyond the fifteen years ADOT is covering?
A: The City has fifteen years to plan for this and a number of options exist. The most likely approach will be a combination of the following options: 1) in fifteen years, most if not all of the current $6 million annual bond debt payment will be retired, and free up sale tax proceeds that is now being used to supplement the Wastewater system; 2) the $35,000 the City currently pays for its share of road maintenance costs will not be needed and can be put in a restricted fund for future costs associated with SR 89A; 3) there are no restrictions on how the other funds provided by ADOT can be used as long as they are used for transportation costs in the corridor, so any excess funds can be used for other related road costs. These three options combined will free up several million dollars annually that can be used for City costs, including costs associated with a Route Transfer. Also, the City could set aside a portion of future annual budget surpluses in the restricted road fund to accumulate and earn interest, and then be used for future road projects on SR 89A.
If you have additional questions or would like further information, please contact the City Manager’s Office at 928-204-7127. Be sure to visit the SedonaEye.com Calendar of Events for postings of new and important events in Sedona and surrounding communities. Be in the know!
In response to the Sedona City Managers (interesting, no name given) article above, the last sentence says “These three options combined will free up several million dollars annually that can be used for City costs, including costs associated with a Route Transfer. Also, the City could set aside a portion of future annual budget surpluses in the restricted road fund to accumulate and earn interest, and then be used for future road projects on SR 89A.
Never a suggestion that the savings could be used to lower taxes, huh?
Once they have the taxes to pay for their agenda they never want them reduced, they look for other ways to squander our money. Ever ask why? What could possibly motivate the city employees and council to want to continually increase spending?…think back on the City Hall building acquisition…$4.5 mill for a $2.5 mill building? Who profited on this deal? What happened to the city manager who engineered this deal?
Or, what about the “tree farm” deal where the city acquired acreage to trade to the state for land used to distribute the effluent of the sewer plant? They paid $40,000 per acre in a double-escrow deal where the seller had the property in escrow for $20,000 per acre. Who was that seller? What were their ties to the city? Why didn’t the original owner of the tree farm offer the property to the city for $20,000 per acre? How were these ‘double-escrow’ people privy to the future plans of the city concerning the city’s desire to acquire this desired acreage (by the state). Follow the money, citizens…or maybe you’d prefer to just go back asleep. These guys are counting on just that!!!
Sedona City Council Hosts Open House on SR 89A Route Transfer Issue is scheduled For January 13 at the Sedona Public Library:
On Thursday from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Sedona City Council will host an open house at the Sedona Public Library as part of its public education and outreach regarding the possible route transfer of State Route 89A. City Staff and Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) representatives will be available throughout the evening for informal individual questions. A variety of informational pieces will be available to assist the public in learning more about the possible route transfer. This will include display boards detailing both the ADOT lighting proposal and range of alternative improvements provided by the City’s engineering consultant.
City Staff will provide brief presentations on the topic at 4:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. and an opportunity for a more formal question and answer session will also be available at those times.
Future opportunities for input include a Neighborhood Listening at West Sedona School on Wednesday, January 19 starting at 6:30 p.m., and a Council Work Session on Wednesday, February 9 at 5:00 p.m. Interested community members are invited to attend these meetings.
To keep up to date on this issue, visit the City’s website at http://www.SedonaAZ.gov/Council and click on “89A Route Transfer Meetings & Information.” All of the current information regarding the possible transfer is available on this page.
For more information, go to the website above or contact the City Manager’s office at 204-7127.
Regarding the latest CIVTech document posted on the City website . . . Of particular interest to me is the memo from the City Manager Erik Levitt with comments typed in red from someone named Seth dated April 21, 2008 (Appendix E The Safety Panel Recommendations and/or Suggestions, pages 82-84). At the end of this section it lists all of the individuals involved and the person named Seth is Seth Chalmers from ADOT!!!
Almost every suggested improvement in that memo matches what CIV Tech is recommending PLUS it shows that ADOT knows about the safety deficiencies already existing on SR 89A at least for the past two years. Why hasn’t ADOT fixed these deficiencies? Does ADOT have any plans to fix the deficiencies if the City does not buy the road back? Has anyone on staff asked these questions and if not, why not?
Jerry Reynolds, I have no idea who you are, but your information is right on. One thing you left out was the gross deviation on implementation of the wastewater treatment (sewer) system. Instead of dutifully following priority to provide service to the older subdivisions, connections were allocated to new development, including expansion of resorts. The fiasco of allowing Mystic Hills to “prepay” and then running out of capacity to fulfill the commitment was another huge blunder and expense to the city. Those of us in areas which should have been high priority, including where Mayor Adams lives, will probably never be connected. Many of us have prepaid the connection fee. We should have been served prior to the Chapel Area according to the original schedule. Shame, shame . . .
And as for promised money to be retained for it’s specified designation, I say “Hah, Hah” simply based on the premise of other broken commitments. The only promise made so far that was attached to the sales pitch of “Incorporation” is that to date we haven’t been assessed City Property Tax. Any bets, Mr. Reynolds, on how long that statement will remain viable?
I’m far more concerned about what will happen as a result of decisions being made now than by the really good intentions of this City Council. All City Councils mean well; but their endeavors seem to become muddied once they are no longer seated in those chairs. (my opinion)
As far as determing who is more creditable, the City of Sedona or ADOT, a flip of a double headed, or tailed, coin might serve as a reliable source.
I’m very tuned in and appreciative of your comments even if, for no other reason, they will serve as a sad documented record in future years as an “I told you so” sort of thing.
Eddie S. Maddock
Eddie,
I know your name and I probably would recognize you if I saw you… as a recognizable face over our 27 years in Sedona.
I too am ‘tuned in” to the history of Sedona from the incorporation scam, the sewer fiasco, false promises, stupid planning and zoning issues, the city hall purchase and the infamous ‘tree farm’ exchange with the state for the additional effluent lands across the highway from the sewer plant.
All we can do, as citizens of Sedona, is keep as bright a light on the goings on in this town as we can because the RRN will not print the truth…they are hip deep in the conspiracy regarding incorporation inducements printed prior to the vote as well as protecting their advertisers over the best interests of the residents of Sedona.
Some time ago there was a local tv program on channel 7 (I think) called “Crossfire”. You might recall it when Sheri Graham, our ex-vice mayor tried to shed light on the city hall purchase. A local realtor and the RRN sued the station causing the program director to file for bankruptcy. The program ended (they were getting too close to the truth) and thats the last we heard of it. We haven’t had much truth told about the inter-workings of Sedona including the chamber of commerce which told us in 1983 that there were 10,000 people living in Sedona and then 3.5 million visitors each year. (That’s 9,589 people each day of the year…rain or shine, snow or sleet). A daily doubling of the towns population each and every day. The RRN never disputed this fantasy. I had a friend take part in the 1990 census and she told us the population count of Sedona was just under 4000!!! How can a community establish credibility as a viable political entity when its based on falsehoods spread around by rumor and evasive language used to obviscate and distort reality in order to attract more businesses to advertise their wares to a totally ficticious ‘visitor count’. The business ‘turnover’ in Sedona is legend. Why?
Where are the ‘promised millions’ of tourists? Oh, we have lots of them, but now they say 4.5 million a year (12,328 each and every day?) Rubbish!
In answer to your initial issue of the sewer promises Eddie…think back to before the incorporation vote when the Sedona Sewer District was helmed by Ted Riccard. He always said Sedona didn’t need a central sewer system. What Sedona needed was for the ADEQ to come up here and inspect each and every on-site system (aerobic and septic) and force the owners to bring their systems into compliance. He knew the entire ‘uptown commercial district” was dumping effluent directly into Oak Creek because they were, for the most part, sitting on rock or on soil that didn’t perc and they didn’t have the land to use for the above-ground distribution of an aerobic/chlorinated systems.Their only hope was a central sewer system. The financial loss of advertising revenue to the RRN would be devastating should the ADEQ actually come up and close down the failed on-site systems. Thus, the incorporation push to enable a central sewer system. Distortions of the truth were published by the RRN of certain claims made by various pro-incorporation individuals and the “threat” of a “moritorium on all new construction by the ADEQ if we don’t put in a sewer system”. Thus the panic which resulted in the vote for incorporation on that fatefull Tuesday.
The promise of operating on a 1 million per year budget…of sewering all of Sedona before new construction…at a total cost of $25 million. What a crock!
The business community and the RRN were happy that “uptown would be saved”. All this was justified by telling the people the tourists would pay the cost of the running of the city as well as the cost of the sewer bond through sales taxes. All “4.5 million tourists” could generate enough annual revenue to pay for these costs and not the residents of Sedona.
Each and every council and city manager has “managed” the public into allowing these events which have led us to todays situation. The promise of “no property taxes” will be the next to go. You’ll see.
Mayor Adams and Members of the Sedona City Council:
Have you made a firm decision to conduct a professional poll, via telephone, regarding the proposed ADOT turn-back of SR W89A? If so, will the phone calls be made at random or will an attempt be made to reach incorporated Sedona’s entire population? If this is to be a mere sampling, as is frequently the case of telephone surveys, may I ask why?
Certainly there’s a degree of validity in the sampling approach; however, in an instance involving not only another of Sedona’s major contentious issues, the future impact of the outcome will be monumental. In such a case, why would you not mail a questionnaire to all residents of Sedona, as has been done in the past, thus allowing those who wish to respond fair opportunity to do so?
In that manner, nothing will occur as perceived secrecy to leave questions or doubt about the context of the questions or whether or not a selective calling list had been procured. Those who choose to opt out of responding to such a questionnaire will do so of their own volition and not because of having been denied the opportunity.
Respectfully I prevail upon you to pursue a fair evaluation which, in my opinion, will only be recognized as such if all citizens are given equal opportunity.
Sincerely,
Eddie S. Maddock
Sedona Registered Voter
Hi to Jerry Reynolds,
Not my intention here to hog space, but I feel the need to set the record straight on at least one reference in your recent post.
Yes, I am aware of the TV program. Backfire it was called. As the co-host of that program, I was among those who had the dubious honor of being named in that million dollar slander law suit. I must correct your inference that the Red Rock News was a plaintiff in the actual law suit. Their performance, however, served to deny those of us, the defendants, equal opportunity insofar as printing supportive letters submitted to that publication. That I can prove.
I must also correct that the owner of Geronimo Communications, Channel 17, did not file for bankruptcy. The intent after vacating the studio in the Village of Oak Creek was to resume broadcasting from another location on the Red Rock Loop Road. However, the City of Sedona, having a franchise agreement with the cable television service, prevented cable connection to that site.
At one time I had proof of that allegation in the form of the franchise contract, but after so many years I must protect myself here and clearly qualify that it remains my “opinion” that it was the City of Sedona who prevented our resuming the Backfire programs.
As for your other comments, I’ve no reason to dispute them. However, I do believe the land exchange for the acreage at the Dell’s had to do with a land trade with the USFS and not the State. One cannot be too careful and I speak from experience.
FYI, it was not my choice to be vacated from the law suit. I wanted to run the gamut for a jury trial and my attorney was up for it. However, my insurance company covering my legal expenses opted for a settlement agreement offered by the plaintiffs to release me from the law suit with which I simply was forced to sign.
Thanks, Jerry, for the trip down memory lane which is a reminder that unless our present city leaders aren’t astute they might well be unleashing even more wild beasts. (Again, just my opinion.)
E. Maddock
It will be interesting to see if the public is interested in this topic or not. Much was said about the election being a mandate for the new city council. Now that the flamers have been relegated to dustbins deserved, let city council members do the job elected to perform…Sedona’s needs before the desires of a few.
Carl
Eddie,
I stand corrected..
Yes, you’re right. The RRN wasn’t one of the plaintiffs…but they may as well have been. They protected city’s shenanigans by way of avoiding the printing of letters responding to the many suggestions to look closer at their decisions/actions such as made by made by Sheri, you and many others.
Yes, now I remember the ‘tree farm’ trade was with the USFS and not the state. The Forest Service had no dog in this fight. They wanted the tree farm land and the city wanted their 200 acres. So the city bought the tree farm and traded with them for the 200 acres. Not really the point I was making but then that was a while back and was one of the many “questionable” actions taken by the city which seemed to add to the wealth of some people who were on the “inside”…actions such as the city hall building purchase.
As you have stated Eddie, that your comments are just your “opinion”, such is the case with my comments…just my “opinion”.
It’s interesting to note, however, that many back then shared our “opinions” but apparently the RRN saw fit not to investigate and print such “opinions” nor to comment via their editorials as to the importance of seeing that there was total ‘transparency’ concerning the actions of our city council,the city staff and especially the city manager.
If “Sedona Q” is the Carl I think he is (see above), Carl, you were a pussy 20 years ago and it appears nothing has changed. If you are not the Carl I refer to, my apologies. (You’ll know if you are).
Sedona City Council has undertaken an information gathering process to determine whether a route transfer is in its best interest. The section of roadway under consideration is the contiguous section of SR 89A, from Sedona Red Rock High School to the Y roundabout
and the small section of SR 179 to Portal Road. This ongoing public education process will terminate on February 22, 2011 when City
Council makes its final decision. It includes nine more public meetings and three types of various surveys (see below).
More public meetings have been scheduledA quick reminder and overview of finalized 89a public information schedule: January Public Meetings
01/19 11 :00 VEARDE VALLEY REPUBLICAN WOMEN LOS ABRIGADOS
01/19 6:00 PM DEMOCRATS OF THE RED ROCKS ST. ANDREWS EPISCOPAL CHURCH
01/19 6:30 PM NEIGHBORHOOD LISTENING SESSION W. SEDONA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
01/20 7:30 PM SEDONA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BEST WESTERN ARROYO ROBLE
01/20 8:30 AM SEDONA-VERDE VALLEY ASSOC. OF REALTORS at ELKS LODGE
01/20 10:30 AM KEEP SEDONA BEAUTIFUL PUSHMATAHA
PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS from consultant are in progress:
A business survey has already been mailed. (Be sure to return yours!)
A scientific sampling survey of residents via landline telephone numbers is in
progress.
CITY WEBSITE SURVEY {similar to the recent survey for art in the round-abouts/information available on this web site)
– Further email notices will be emailed when this survey will becomes available.
Online Opinion Survey for SR 89A Route Transfer Issue:
The Sedona City Council invites residents to give their opinion on the SR 89A Route Transfer issue via an online opinion survey starting Monday, January 24, 2011.
Visit the City’s website using the featured article found on this website. For the survey to be counted, you must be a resident of the City of Sedona, include your name and address, and only submit one per person. The survey will be available online until Monday, February 7, 2011 at noon. The short survey asks residents to choose one of two options: 1) Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) keeps SR 89A and installs lights; or 2) Transfer SR 89A to City and install proposed safety improvements.
While the results of the survey will not be scientifically valid, this opinion poll will be provided to City Council as part of their consideration of this issue.
Future opportunities for input include a Council Work Session on Wednesday, February 9 at 5:00 p.m. and a regular meeting on Tuesday, February 22 at 4:30 p.m. Interested community members are invited to attend. Contact the City Manager’s office at 204-7127 with questions.
Does this mean the vote entered for me and another for my wife will not be counted as two votes?
No surprise that Sedona P&Z voted in favor of turnback. Done deal before vote was taken. Not worth expounding upon unless other news that doesnt have content.
I can understand the desire of many of the residents of Sedona to enjoy the beauty of diamond-like stars shining brightly in the dark skies. I am definitely one of them! At the same time, we need to ask ourselves if that enjoyment is worth the extra burden of taking over from ADOT the expense of maintaining a portion of State Route 89A. Our City is already struggling to maintain existing services and it would be irresponsible on the part of the Mayor and the City Council to assume an additional burden that will become an albatross around the necks of the taxpayers of Sedona for many years to come.
In addition, the prospect of building medians along 89A may become ” the straw that broke the camel’s back” for the struggling business community situated on that route.
It is crucial that our city fathers listen to ALL of the residents of Sedona, specially the business community that’s bringing a generous amount of revenue in the form of precious sales tax. It is this sales tax generated by our businesses that is the source of the majority of the revenue that provides the citizens of Sedona with all of the essential services they are accustomed to and enjoy.
Are we willing to gamble all of that to enjoy the beauty of dark skies?
Abe Koniarsky
Sedona, AZ
http://www.sedonaaz.gov/sedonacms/Modul/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=11014
Send your comments to the Sedona City Council before Tuesday’s City Council Meeting using this link:
SedonaCityCouncil@SedonaAZ.gov