Sedona City Council on Wednesday received a needs assessment and menu of implementation options for a regional plan to address homelessness in the Verde Valley and asked staff to pursue further regional coordination, operational details and a focused, near-term proposal for the council’s budget discussions.
The presentation by VM Advising summarized a point-in-time count the consultants said was updated to 64 people in Sedona and an estimated 600 people across the Verde Valley who experienced homelessness over the past year. Consultant Matt White said the report breaks the population into three groups — short-term or “transitional,” episodic and chronic — and offered three tiers of investments Sedona could consider, from prevention-focused measures to a fully resourced regional response.
Why it matters: Council members, service providers and residents who spoke at the meeting emphasized that a regional, coordinated system is needed because people move between Verde Valley jurisdictions and many services and funding sources are already regional. Councilors asked for an implementation plan that clarifies roles, who would manage shared funds or tools (for example, a by-name list) and how Sedona’s initial investment would be scaled or matched by other jurisdictions.
The consultants outlined the scale of need and suggested interventions. “It’s 64, not 41,” Matt White said when updating the council on Sedona’s point-in-time count, and he added the broader figure: “about 600 individuals who experience homelessness” across the Verde Valley over a year. VM Advising presented a typology the team used to estimate likely service needs: roughly 60% of people experienced homelessness under 90 days (transitional), about 30% episodic and about 10% chronic. The consultants emphasized that modest, well‑targeted prevention funding can reduce the flow into more costly, long‑term homelessness.
The plan’s building blocks included: a flex fund for small stabilization grants; landlord recruitment and risk‑mitigation incentives; crisis housing (voucher or temporary bed capacity); rapid rehousing slots; permanent supportive housing for people with disabling conditions; outreach and clinical transition teams; and a coordinated by-name list and case conferencing across jurisdictions. VM Advising estimated regional shortfalls of roughly 80–90 crisis beds, 40–50 permanent supportive units and 80 additional rapid‑rehousing slots, and proposed an illustrative Sedona share in three tiers: a foundational Tier 1 (flex fund, landlord incentives, some crisis housing) with estimated Sedona annual costs in the low hundreds of thousands (flex fund $75,000–$125,000; landlord incentives $50,000–$100,000), Tier 2 adding expanded rapid rehousing (additional $300,000–$400,000), and a Tier 3 “full” regional share adding longer‑term stabilization (another $1.0–$1.3 million at the Sedona share level). The consultants cautioned the numbers were proportional estimates for Sedona’s share, not the full Verde Valley cost.
Local providers and partners described existing capacity and gaps. Taria Weiss, executive director of Hope House of Sedona, described Hope House as a small, non‑emergency shelter that houses families (average stay about six months, with stays up to two years) and said Sedona providers regularly coordinate intake and by‑name list reviews. “This is a cause that is near and dear to my heart,” Weiss told the council, and she urged investment in prevention and capacity so shelters and case managers can move more people into permanent housing. Catholic Charities confirmed it will operate rapid‑rehousing programming recently funded through a redirected Arizona Department of Housing (ADO) award and said outreach and coordinated entry are already beginning in Sedona; a Catholic Charities representative told council staff that outreach and coordinated entry work is underway but housing placements had not yet been completed at the time of the meeting.
Arizona Complete Health’s community affairs lead, Anthony Mancini, described specialty court models and behavioral health crisis systems used elsewhere in Arizona and said some Northern Arizona systems have demonstrated results when courts and behavioral health partners coordinate mandated treatment and diversion options. “We have seen a lot of people get connected to services,” Mancini said of systems that include specialty courts plus crisis‑to‑treatment pathways.
Council questions focused on scale, governance and measurable outcomes. Council members repeatedly pressed for clarity on who would lead and manage a regional effort, how cost‑sharing among Verde Valley jurisdictions would be negotiated, what Sedona’s practical first‑step commitment should be and how the city would evaluate effectiveness. Several councilors favored a phased approach: a modest, Sedona‑focused Tier 1 investment to build capacity (flex fund, landlord outreach, short crisis housing vouchers), data collection and measurable outcomes, then decisions on expansion after the city sees documented results and regional buy‑in.
Operational details discussed included the city’s existing cold‑weather hotel voucher allocation ($15,000 set aside but not spent yet pending severe conditions), Sedona Police Department plans to assign a dedicated resource officer for outreach (Officer Michael Lucas was named as the planned assignment subject to staffing and training), and ongoing work by the Local Coalition to End Homelessness and Catholic Charities on by‑name list coordination and point‑in‑time counts. VM Advising recommended formal MOUs or resolutions among jurisdictions, a shared by‑name list with agreed roles for case conferencing, and an explicit cost‑share formula by jurisdiction based on population and need.
What council asked staff to do next: city staff were asked to continue regional outreach (mayors/managers and county partners), return with a short list of specific, limited near‑term investments Sedona could consider during its budget and priority‑setting process, and bring back clearer implementation options (who would run any pooled funds, what metrics would be tracked, and an estimated budget for the first phase). Staff and the consultants agreed the draft report was still being finalized and that additional refinements would follow the meeting.
The meeting included public comments from providers and residents who encouraged prevention and local capacity building and urged the council to move forward while ensuring oversight and measurable results. Linda Martinez, who serves on the board of Housing Solutions of Northern Arizona, described regional hotel‑to‑housing conversions and local examples (Oak Wash and JoJo’s Place) and recommended building on proven projects. “It gives people a chance to breathe, to get the services they need, and to get on their feet,” Martinez said of Oak Wash’s results.
Council members agreed on a cautious, phased approach: several members said they favor beginning with Tier 1 investments tied to clear metrics and staff‑defined operational steps while staff pursues regional conversations and a backbone or lead organization to administer shared tools and any pooled funds. The council asked staff to return with a targeted implementation step for consideration during the upcoming budget and priority‑setting cycle and to pursue presentations and outreach to neighboring Verde Valley jurisdictions and county partners to assess regional interest and potential cost sharing.
The strategic plan draft will be refined by VM Advising and staff; the consultants said a revised draft would be available before the council’s priority‑setting meeting. No vote or appropriation was requested or taken at this session; council direction was limited to next‑step requests for more operational detail, regional coordination outreach and a small, focused funding proposal for the city’s budget deliberations.