[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6678285,"mediaKeyId","2111967-abcb3f8bc32236d07984fd60300f829a","parentId",2111967,"title","Sedona council declines to take citywide position on Arizona Water Company rate case","audioSeconds",3740,"startMs",8210000,"endMs",11950000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2111967-abcb3f8bc32236d07984fd60300f829a&start=8210&end=11950","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2111967-abcb3f8bc32236d07984fd60300f829a/thumbnail_8210000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6678285/Sedona/Yavapai-County/Arizona/Sedona-council-declines-to-take-citywide-position-on-Arizona-Water-Company-rate-case","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6678285-144a6d261a7e4d83632fd71d4e065df1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200552&Signature=oLhHgn9lrmNDiazczRmIm94PkOrqiUbIyDbjJ4hGGElfTOXlexJsrhTZgszUcrL2Q9mOPIhKwtutRVH07RRgMD37MZnXAg6i7oP34n03Cjlfy65r4326-j3gleHvdrTUiTAXTxbSvlmu8-dQaz7jytNTuRfB94Y5HQ9dK7eip2EnUrp1pOOiBeqsZgHHwEpXN75tfUkcobKpgDYOBR~2DuDCgZNfhxznyMTrV4UhKeIgZ1VDGsPWkTb1wb5~-AzY1MmAmvhH~MFFRE2txa9BdCHMgnCAFD84WaixPp1ytglKAVx5DJyJFALHUTDDXqjpGcoxmvgvB7XL-nG3aykcAg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Sedona","date","2025-01-14T00:00:00Z","article","Arizona Water Company representatives briefed Sedona’s City Council on Jan. 14 about a pending general rate application filed with the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) for the company’s Northern Group, which includes Sedona.

Nick Lou (AWC) summarized the filing: the company asked to reset rates based on a historic test year ending in 2023 and noted the current approved rates were set in 2019. AWC said inflation, capital investments (treatment plants, mains, tanks and booster stations) and increased operating costs were major drivers of its request. The company said the average residential bill impact under the proposal would be approximately $15.62 per month (about 36% for the average single‑family customer after adjusting for current surcharges) and that public comment sessions before the ACC were scheduled for Jan. 29 and March 17.

Council members and members of the public asked detailed questions about proposed surcharges (including a proposed mechanism to address federal mandates such as PFAS treatment), whether future annual adjustment mechanisms could be used, and how rate class and meter‑size billing affect homeowners associations where one meter serves many single‑family units. AWC representatives said surcharges are typically approved as mechanisms by the ACC and require subsequent filings and prudency review before actual dollar charges are applied; the company confirmed PFAS‑related compliance mechanisms were part of its planning and that the company is in design for treatment where required.

Public comment included requests from homeowners and HOA representatives about the equity of tiered rates when an HOA pays for multiple single‑family homes via a single meter. Councilors asked AWC to look into those scenarios; AWC agreed to review customer class and meter‑size impacts on a case‑by‑case basis.

Council discussion concluded without a motion directing staff to submit a formal council comment letter to the ACC. Multiple councilors said they preferred to remain neutral and encouraged residents, HOAs and stakeholders to participate in the ACC public comment sessions. Councilor Kathy said if council were to provide any comment, it should ask the ACC to ensure rates are no higher than necessary; other councilors said they believed individual homeowners and HOAs should voice their concerns directly to the ACC. Annette offered staff assistance if council wished to prepare a letter, but the council collectively chose not to direct staff to file a council position at this time.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Sedona - City Council - Jan 14, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Arizona Water Company presented a rate application for its Northern Group to Sedona’s City Council on Jan. 14; after questions and public comment the council chose not to direct staff to submit a formal comment to the Arizona Corporation Commission.","taxTitle","Sedona, Yavapai County, Arizona","taxId",54295,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6678288,"Sedona approves $1.87M contract for transit maintenance-and-operations center design",2198,9402000,11600000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2111967-abcb3f8bc32236d07984fd60300f829a&start=9402&end=11600","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2111967-abcb3f8bc32236d07984fd60300f829a/thumbnail_9402000.jpg","/articles/6678288/Sedona/Yavapai-County/Arizona/Sedona-approves-187M-contract-for-transit-maintenance-and-operations-center-design","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6678288-ba7e2b615097afafd228f27b079fca56/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200552&Signature=nNLM~ykqP5KnuF4CVQ0mlPnfQTrjImgrF3iQu2UEUvK-xa7G9pgF0HKoRTYP1VBVxd5YncW5IYQiA4tFWY6u0iF51uFhAyPECsPyhfYAlGDQbbbJ~onLqF-hdFBZ-aF1kU8Cj0YBFRN138u5SFWgY6jFJkJVbpUgdBPW4sGNXPyHEeOX-dDLvaTP0GMq8e~YiTOSzX1zOeS2R-RlgsB4ceMsNjSCPAk6P0XUjioXGOlm9DGUicWdryKI6eq-oo7qj-bOJW6JVVoBqg9KO2-~mXu2xBi5hSADGWqeLp4ZR-i~VDkhusp~C9TreqRwTSDd~mw8jRTq5BUc2RFYVNuT6g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Sedona City Council on Jan. 14 unanimously approved a professional services contract with Kimley‑Horn & Associates Inc. for the design of a transit maintenance and operations center. The contract is for $1,872,014.

City procurement officer Ian Cooper and project staff described a qualifications‑based selection process required by federal grant rules and Arizona procurement law (including 2 CFR Part 200 and state provisions that implement a Brooks‑Act‑style qualifications selection for architecture and engineering). The solicitation was advertised broadly; 61 firms downloaded the RFQ, 34 attended a pre‑submittal meeting, and four firms submitted statements of qualifications. An evaluation team that included regional partners scored respondents; Kimley‑Horn ranked highest; staff then conducted scope clarification and negotiated a final fee.

Staff briefed council on the city’s independent cost estimate (ICE) and noted the originally proposed fee was reviewed against that estimate; after scope review and negotiations the final contract amount was presented to council. Jonathan (project manager) and Curt (project lead) told council the contract funds A/E design through the bid‑ready construction documents. Staff said the city has a federal grant covering a portion of design; $720,000 of the architecture/engineering cost will be funded by the grant award already in hand. The city intends to pursue a separate competitive federal construction grant (significant lands/Federal Transit Administration or comparable program) for the building phase; that construction grant may provide a high federal share (staff cited examples of up to 85% federal participation in construction funding), but construction grants are competitive.

Procurement staff explained that the Arizona procurement statutes restrict negotiating scope/price simultaneously with multiple finalists and require selection based on demonstrated qualifications for A/E services; price is negotiated only with the top firm after selection. Council asked about timing, potential for cost changes, and whether pursuing additional grants could affect the project timeline. Staff said federal and ADOT review steps and grant cycles inform the schedule; staff expects a multi‑phase design process that will proceed through 30–60–90% milestones and that final construction timing depends on grant awards and permitting.

Council approved the contract with 1) the recommendation of staff and the evaluation team and 2) acceptance of the negotiated fee. Council also discussed coordination with ADOT on Highway 89A access and public comments suggested coordinating with recreation/trail stakeholders to reduce multi‑user conflicts at nearby routes.","Council unanimously approved a professional services contract with Kimley‑Horn & Associates for design of a transit maintenance and operations center; contract value $1,872,014. Staff said $720,000 of design cost is covered by a federal grant and further construction grant opportunities will be pursued.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6678293,"Independent audit gives Sedona clean opinion on FY23–24 financial statements",451,7208000,7659000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2111967-abcb3f8bc32236d07984fd60300f829a&start=7208&end=7659","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2111967-abcb3f8bc32236d07984fd60300f829a/thumbnail_7208000.jpg","/articles/6678293/Sedona/Yavapai-County/Arizona/Independent-audit-gives-Sedona-clean-opinion-on-FY2324-financial-statements","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6678293-64331f6dab3cef7a4ec554dd73f3db49/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200552&Signature=YXLBlAqvLywb-7WFJYGgvtEUzsJdCmcLaMHdop8CA8R5mOnjO1hlYU41uzQq~K5cElfSyZVWvGRHkOm1OWv~byiBfF0z-Kxx319atnyIRvgM-r0Hzdxfrrf4J6AOs19UBHjHuNO~WizVWBaCbGZS4p8bd4HszelChetwyhgXhmNB58d3xhUWis4mFBC~KEy0oGIQuuJeY3EEuNwUIsOTgdwslhsXkEYsQ~iSr6Yshcx07ZpR9TuJbahR0Ryg5mT1vOP-goZYIst91083QWNA4QmiEbmC5FCERGaWbnFToBR5A~4rRlpknG0VOJuuYTivS4yINdgWFhPgVygVB0Bc4Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City auditors from CliftonLarsonAllen (CLA) presented the City of Sedona’s annual comprehensive financial report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, and issued an unmodified (clean) audit opinion.

Jean Dietrich, principal with CLA, told the council the auditors performed a risk‑based audit and found no material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control, no material audit adjustments (one small adjustment related to amortization of bond premium was noted), and no evidence of fraud or unusual transactions identified during testing. CLA also reported no difficulties or disagreements with management during the audit process.

The audit included special-purpose examination reporting required by state law: a compliance examination of the state highway users revenue fund (AZ Rev Stat Title 28 compliance) yielded no findings; the city also remained within the voter‑approved alternative expenditure limitation (home-rule expenditure limit) for the reporting period.

City staff noted the audit was completed on schedule despite a recent transition in finance leadership, and both the auditors and staff praised the finance team for work that enabled timely reporting. Auditors said a change in presentation related to major funds was implemented to provide more consistent year‑to‑year financial comparisons (GASB guidance and related presentation changes) and that management estimates used in preparing the financial statements did not suggest management bias.

Council members thanked staff and auditors; questions focused on the amortization adjustment and on clarification that the home‑rule alternative expenditure limitation number is the council‑established cap associated with home‑rule authority (the number cited in the report is the most recent council‑set limit). The auditors said the city remains well within its expenditure limitation and noted the city did not meet federal single‑audit thresholds for fiscal 2024 (no single audit required).

The City will publish the audited annual comprehensive financial report and follow routine procedures for posting and distributing the report to stakeholders.","CliftonLarsonAllen presented the city’s FY 2023–24 annual comprehensive financial report and issued an unmodified (clean) opinion on the city’s basic financial statements; auditors reported no material weaknesses, no disagreements with management, and no material audit adjustments.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6678297,"Sedona council authorizes circulation of annexation petition for 3,422-acre Dells area",2215,2542000,4757000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2111967-abcb3f8bc32236d07984fd60300f829a&start=2542&end=4757","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2111967-abcb3f8bc32236d07984fd60300f829a/thumbnail_2542000.jpg","/articles/6678297/Sedona/Yavapai-County/Arizona/Sedona-council-authorizes-circulation-of-annexation-petition-for-3422-acre-Dells-area","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6678297-cb0c273a6c0b2e6b897c13275b54f715/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200552&Signature=gVW2xi1R-VCZf66mMBPRaEa81bR3gR2GcxuH7fZ73bu56hQxeB85PpTz77lIbOglGka2JJqkc2xpPNMIrXR9Yajv3NWd~L2XA2Pptj8hpnBz2IaiKBbTluazQgogbqApuo-keNlpxf4NzYf2I9deq5odEI8M8huZCHrb6dku1OOsvZFT3W8n5Ok5PzprNj27qwnTxzmXfn~xVgCQ1NUXhBJOwetHTqSNjw5Rs0cpbT~mt5kwBrCaeLnUHo26BXLEFpdIzIWdmdsylZmT-OqHHikCHd8jkj8AXazgmlD5IPBTKzNgCY4QaZ4Dp2-eMrB6ioNAac1lE5-JaXyhUoq0nA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Sedona City Council on Jan. 14 authorized staff to circulate a blank annexation petition seeking signatures for a proposed annexation of roughly 3,422 acres that includes the city’s wastewater treatment plant and adjacent city-owned property known as the Dells.

Kurt (city staff) presented the proposed annexation map and background, telling the council the proposed boundary includes federal, state and utility-owned parcels. The mapped area contains land owned by the Coconino National Forest, Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) right of way, and only three privately assessed property interests within the annexation boundary — a section of APS power-line assets, a solar lease to EDP Renewables on city property, and a small Lumen parcel with minimal assessed value.

Kurt said state and county records show no privately-owned developable property in the boundary aside from the three assessed interests; because two of the three owners had already indicated support (APS and EDP Renewables), staff expects collecting the required signatures to be straightforward. The city has up to one year to collect the required property-owner signatures if council authorizes staff to proceed.

Council members asked several questions about possible consequences of annexation. Staff and legal advisers emphasized that annexation changes jurisdictional boundaries but does not change federal land ownership of Coconino National Forest acreage. District Ranger Alex Schluter (Forest Service) told staff the Forest Service has strict federal criteria and processes governing any land exchanges or divestitures; such a transfer would be a multiyear federal process and is “highly unlikely” absent an act of Congress or a qualifying exchange under specific federal law.

Staff said the city would provide policing to the annexed area (policing authority currently rests with Yavapai County); other services (water, sewer, fire) are not changing as a direct result of annexation. The city’s sewer service boundary is not being expanded as part of the annexation, and the Sedona Fire District already provides fire protection.

Initial zoning for the annexed land would match county density: RS-70,000 (one unit per two acres). Staff noted any different development (rezoning) would require council approval.

Public speakers raised concerns and suggestions during the public hearing. Richard Black requested the city consider a deed restriction or conservation easement to prevent future commercial or residential development; staff explained a enforceable restriction on city-owned property would require the city to place a restriction on the land and, if desired, could be coupled with sale to a conservation buyer. Nina Barlow (Greater Sedona Recreation Collaborative working group) asked the council to consider trail and off-highway-vehicle connections across Highway 89A that could be coordinated with the annexation area and with ADOT.

Council discussion touched on long-term stewardship and future development scenarios. Several councilors said bringing the Dells into the city would give future residents a city voice and zoning protections; one councilor opposed the annexation as a policy change made without broader public debate. After discussion, the council voted 6–1 to authorize staff to circulate the blank annexation petition and, once sufficient signatures are gathered (two of the three property owners and a majority of assessed value), return the annexation for ordinance adoption within one year.

Next steps: staff will seek signatures from the three property owners (APS, EDP Renewables lessee, and Lumen) and return to council with a proposed ordinance and service plan if/when required signatures are obtained.","The council authorized staff to circulate a blank annexation petition seeking signatures to annex about 3,422 acres including the wastewater treatment plant and adjacent city-owned land. Council directed staff to collect signatures (two of three identified private/assessed property owners required); the motion passed 6–1.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6678303,"Sedona council adopts new development impact fees, effective March 31",226,2229000,2455000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2111967-abcb3f8bc32236d07984fd60300f829a&start=2229&end=2455","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2111967-abcb3f8bc32236d07984fd60300f829a/thumbnail_2229000.jpg","/articles/6678303/Sedona/Yavapai-County/Arizona/Sedona-council-adopts-new-development-impact-fees-effective-March-31","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6678303-ee7146668f6cbd372a931f797bea8e29/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200552&Signature=awBTUN~iprzYuOOoSCsPxTKcuxopD0qYUPu2gE5cu93BT3HD9Ye75soP3CykUz0-aWUj4wz55kD4x-7XyJ2roLLBOmUetwxk7AXLPKNrbUvwo~k~ZoKoIB686hN7hpX1YRpinylme~WaflWM192Mn0p3~ND-uNYzo5PFYLXlBMMUMcDs9duSLR7HdDlpiUlxvLlruBkWYZ9-odV7r41CJchsQQGwJfwCGI0xlXWCmJUzG4rLd8nhlJf4d~gqkHgjgQWT3-esrek8FFy-WuA8x~ynTZVK3KkBNT4VRpPWEZQ0TwryxoJClrrycBZrpz1j7NaTu6C7GAeSZm45I9XSxA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Sedona’s City Council voted 5–2 on Jan. 14 to adopt a resolution approving the January 14, 2025 Development Impact Fee Report and set the new fees to take effect March 31, 2025.

The resolution formalizes rates and an updated consolidated fee schedule the council directed staff to prepare after prior discussions in December. Councilor Melissa moved to approve Resolution No. 2025-01.1; a second was recorded. Vice Mayor Plueg and Councilor Kathy (last name not specified on record) said they would vote against the measure during the meeting.

Supporters on the council and staff said the report reflects previously discussed direction and the formal adoption completes the last step in the noticed process. Annette (planning staff) told the council the packet had not changed since the December discussion and that staff had completed required noticing.

Opponents said the fees would make building in Sedona more expensive and could discourage people from relocating to the city. Kathy said the fees do nothing to help individual single-family homes and “send the wrong message” about affordability. Vice Mayor Plueg said he had opposed the measure from the beginning and reiterated concerns that higher fees could “make it even more expensive to build a house in this town” and deter people who want to live in Sedona.

The council’s decision may affect future development applications. Staff told the council that the city could accommodate projects offering public benefits through development agreements; in those cases the city could, by agreement, offset or pay development impact fees on behalf of a developer. Absent a development agreement or a development program explicitly approved by council, the fees will be collected as adopted.

Councilors who supported the resolution said fee adoption provides clear, objective expectations for developers and helps fund public infrastructure tied to growth.

The new fees are scheduled to appear on the city’s consolidated fee schedule and become effective March 31, 2025. The council did not change the fee report during the vote.

Details for developers and the public will be available in the updated consolidated fee schedule on the city website and through the planning department.","The Sedona City Council on Jan. 14 adopted a resolution approving a January 14, 2025 development impact fee report; fees take effect March 31, 2025. The 5–2 vote drew objections from council members who said the schedule could raise housing costs and discourage new residents.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Sedona council declines to take citywide position on Arizona Water Company rate case

Sedona approves $1.87M contract for transit maintenance-and-operations center design

Independent audit gives Sedona clean opinion on FY23–24 financial statements

Sedona council authorizes circulation of annexation petition for 3,422-acre Dells area

Sedona council adopts new development impact fees, effective March 31