Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates economic diversification, considers expanding service contracts to support local nonprofits
Summary
Councilors split on elevating economic diversification from a planning lens to a formal priority while staff offered a path for exploring entrepreneurship, broadband and tourism resilience. Members also signaled preliminary support for moving Sedona Food Bank and Hope House through the city’s service‑contract review, pending fiscal details.
Sedona councilors spent a large portion of the retreat on Dec. 17 debating whether economic development and diversification should be an elevated priority or treated as a crosscutting ‘‘lens’’ for existing work. Tony, the city’s community development/economic director, described ‘‘economic infrastructure’’ steps — broadband, regulatory streamlining and support for entrepreneurs — as practical levers the city can use to nudge diversification over time.
"Diversification may not be a 50/50 split — it might be 90/10 at first — but building the infrastructure makes us ready if new opportunities arise," Tony said during the discussion.
Some councilors urged caution about using city resources to pursue large recruitment projects or to dramatically reshape Retail/Uptown character; others saw potential in attracting remote workers and entrepreneurs and in strengthening partnerships with the chamber and regional economic partners. Several councilors suggested a modest, operational approach: ask staff to return with a concrete list of achievable steps for next year rather than making an immediate allocation of new staff or major funds.
On community services, councilors debated whether two local nonprofits — Sedona Food Bank and Hope House — should be added to the city’s multi‑year community service provider (CSP) roster. Staff explained the practical difference between CSPs (multi‑year, sustainable contracts for ongoing services the city would otherwise provide) and one‑time small grants. "A three‑year CSP provides sustainability to an organization that is delivering critical services," staff explained, but councilors asked for limits so city funding would not supplant private fundraising or create excessive dependency.
Council members asked staff to pursue more fiscal detail: show each organization’s requested amount, what share of their total budget that funding would represent, and how the CSP request fits into the city’s flat‑revenue guidance. Several members emphasized that any CSP additions should go through the same decision‑package process and fiscal review as other requests in the FY‑27 budget.
Council also reviewed an inventory of outside boards, shared‑governance bodies and liaison assignments and directed staff to prune or reclassify informal items so the city’s public records more clearly reflect formal relationships and any budgeted memberships.
Staff will return with implementation steps and fiscal analyses next month; councilors signaled interest in continued study rather than immediate adoption of a major new economic development program.
