Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Priorities And Outreach topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors press Gensler on Oak Creek, Ashfork turnout, and Peoples Valley substation plans
Summary
Board members asked why Village of Oak Creek and other local priorities were not clearly reflected in the draft priorities; a supervisor said only four residents attended an Ashfork meeting and pressed for better outreach; Gensler said Peoples Valley appears in the latest draft and agreed to deliver updated reports.
During the Gensler presentation, several supervisors pressed the consultant on how specific communities were classified and prioritized. A supervisor asked whether Village of Oak Creek was categorized as a 'service desert' given traffic congestion on SR 179 and a larger senior population that makes county access difficult; the presenter responded that Oak Creek is an anomaly—perception ties it to Sedona but county response time and transportation burdens create a de facto service desert experience.
Supervisors also raised local initiatives and implementation progress. One supervisor said their office has advanced architectural drawings and donated land for a People's Valley sheriff substation and asked that those plans be reflected in the study. Gensler confirmed Peoples Valley is identified as a high-priority new location in the latest draft and agreed to include recent developments in the updated report.
A supervisor criticized outreach for the Ashfork engagement, saying only four community members attended an in-person meeting. A Gensler representative acknowledged the low turnout for that event but said the firm conducted multiple engagement types and reported about 150–160 survey responses from Seligman and Ashfork combined, which the firm said represent those communities in the overall dataset. "I don't think it was from lack of trying to get the word out," the consultant said, and also acknowledged it was "great to have that additional community partner" to get more attendees.
Board members requested updated complete copies of the report and the consultant said it would provide five fresh copies and circulate the final draft within about a month after supervisors submit edits. No formal action or vote occurred; the meeting closed after the board and consultants agreed on next steps for finalizing the study.
