Sedona council presses staff for FY27 plan after engineers present options to fix city‑dedicated but privately maintained streets
Loading...
Summary
Public works presented mapping and options to address about 1+ mile of public rights‑of‑way not maintained by the city and approximately 40 miles of private roads; staff proposed three scenarios (full upgrade, targeted safety improvements, or status quo) and the council directed staff to return in FY27 with an assessment, outreach plan and funding options.
Public works staff briefed Sedona City Council on March 10 about public rights‑of‑way that were dedicated historically but remain privately maintained, and about private streets within city limits. Engineering supervisor John Evers and Public Works Director Kurt Harris told council the inventory includes slightly more than 1 mile of public road that is not currently maintained by the city (examples: Goodrow Lane, Finke Drive, Schimberg Drive, Klein Road, Grasshopper Lane, Aspen Road and Serenade) and roughly 40 miles of private roads.
Staff presented three policy pathways for city‑owned rights‑of‑way that the council requested be evaluated: (1) full upgrades to current city standards (50‑foot right‑of‑way, 12‑foot lanes, curb, gutter, sidewalks and drainage), (2) targeted safety improvements (widening to the maximum available inside existing right‑of‑way, sight‑distance improvements, drainage work) and (3) maintain the status quo. For example, staff estimated option 2 (nominal safety improvements) on Goodrow/Finke/Schimberg could range between $500,000 and $1.5 million. Grasshopper/Little Elf Way and other shorter connections had lower order‑of‑magnitude costs (roughly $100,000–$250,000 for certain connections), while full upgrades to city standards would be substantially more.
Council members focused questions on public‑safety elements (fire‑truck access, hydrant availability, turnarounds), ownership and easement verification, vegetation removal and community acceptance. Staff noted legal and plat constraints that historically kept county acceptance from taking place until roads meet standards, and that some parcels show only ingress/egress easements rather than public right‑of‑way. Staff also advised that improvements could require utility relocations, additional hydrants and easement dedications and that those trades would influence cost and design.
During public comment and council discussion, several councilors urged prioritizing city‑owned streets that serve many parcels and focusing on "option 2" safety upgrades rather than full reconstruction. The council expressed interest in a design concept and neighborhood outreach, including a field trip to the sites and targeted engagement with affected neighborhoods. A majority direction emerged for staff to prepare a detailed assessment and concept scopes over FY2027, with options for funding to be presented to council (including adding a capital project sheet and 10‑year plan entry). Staff cautioned that completing an in‑depth assessment and community outreach before June for FY27 budgeting would be tight; council agreed FY27 work could produce formal recommendations and funding scenarios for FY2028 implementation.
