Christmas in May

Every now and then I do a Google search of my own name to see if anyone's talking about me or plagiarizing my work -- hey, it happens.

Buried on the fourth page of search results was an entry for the Arizona Press Club.

Seems I've won an award for something I did for Sedona.biz in 2008.

I feel like a little kid on Christmas Eve!

I won't know what the award is for until May 12, when the APC announces the awards at its annual banquet in Phoenix. Read more!

Prediction

Not quite Sedona news, but I thought my article about public transit might be of interest to those of you lurking about this site since my move to Utah.

I graduated from a high school near Lindon, Utah – back when cows and hay dominated the landscape and the population was about 10 times less than it is today.

Seems Utah County (we’ve always called it Happy Valley) turned to auto dealers and call centers as its main economic driver, unlike Sedona’s tourist base.

But, the problems of growth, workforce and housing seem similar.

Sedona and her neighbors have been debating public transit for years, as one of many possible solutions to attracting workers and alleviating the high cost of living.

Could light rail and commuter trains be in the future?

Phoenix already has it. How long will it be before someone suggests linking that system into Northern Arizona?

I predict it will happen, although who knows when.

Sedona’s politicos will surely resists it, since light rail is theoretically accessible to all – including the undesirables.
Read more!

Do you 'Tube?'

In my spare time I often browse journalism peer sites to learn more about the new media phenomenon and try to get ideas for my own direction in the business.

This video was produced by a professor of anthropology and his students. It examines the impacts YouTube has had on social media -- which is a profound insight, to me, on how we as a profession can learn from new technologies to better understand and serve the public.

I hope you'll take the time (about 55 minutes) to watch it.

Read more!

Two more cents worth

If the public and publishers choose to support free content in the name of community journalism, everyone deserves what they get.

For example, the Sedona Red Rock News recently canceled a city column because they found out the city was simultaneously submitting the column to my local publisher.

The RRN dressed up its rational in a disagreement with the mayor over editing policies, but the back story was that the paper wanted exclusive rights to the free content.

A city staffer told me the city was going to relent and only send their content to the RRN. I suggested it might not send a good message for the city to play favorites with the media when the objective is supposed to be maximizing public outreach.

I mean, who are we supposed to be serving here?

In another example, The Sedona Verde Valley Times posted an article yesterday that crucified a man for being gay, perhaps to intimidate him from appearing in a court case in which he is the victim of a threat by the guy who wrote the article I mentioned in my last comment.

The editor who wrote the piece is an avid supporter of the defendant, and the groups he is involved with. He and I have different ideas of journalistic ethics.

By the way, the special interest group I spoke of was supposed to make a presentation today at a mayors’ committee meeting that might have influenced the type of lighting ADOT will install in Sedona. They canceled it, according to city staff, based on the faulty information in that article; written by their ally.

Apparently, they didn’t read my follow-up piece before canceling.

The SVVT read it. And still won’t admit they were wrong.

Ya get what you pay for, folks.
Read more!

Free Press v. Free News

Today, anyone with bandwidth can be a publisher; and anyone with a word processor can pen an “article” and get it published. In this example, the writer intentionally misinformed the public to further a special interest agenda.

My article with the other side of the story is filed and awaiting publication.

One problem our industry faces is that people don’t seem to recognize the hours, thought and effort we put in to our work so that they don’t have to attend all those stimulating government meetings, read all those riveting technical documents, and put the hard questions to the talking heads.

Yes, it’s the public’s right to know. But, professional journalists deserve reasonable and timely compensation for bringing it to them.

So who’s going to pay for it?

For a long time now, advertisers have subsidized news. People complain that advertisers have too much control over content, but seem to overlook that advertisers and publishers often respond to what is popularly read.

Are nonprofit business models the answer? I don’t know. Initial support and sustainable funding seem to be the main obstacles.

Spot.us has an interesting nonprofit model. I pitch a story idea and the public decides whether it gets reported. Or, the public posts a tip, and a journalist turns it into a pitch. No one can fund more than 20 percent of a given project, which is supposed to ensure objectivity, although I have some doubts.

Most important, I think, is that our industry must re-establish trust with our audience. And our audience must find value in our work and be willing to buy it, however that looks.

Professional journalists across the country are talking about this. I say it’s time the general public weighs in and tells us what they will support and how.
Read more!

Reporter’s notebook: Meth

As a youth, I was always fascinated by the mind and how it works. I thought about careers in criminal law or criminal psychology, but life took me in a different direction. Still, I never lost the curiosity about the mysteries of human behavior.

Another interest – music – kept me in close proximity to the drug culture even though I didn’t get involved myself. I have a knack for getting people to talk, which fed my curiosity.

While researching for this article, I recalled a few incidents where I’d seen people using meth.

In 1998, I worked with a young girl named Amy who was sucked in to meth addiction before she was 21 years old. To make a long story short, she had reached out for help, but lacked the self-will to take it. Her parents, who lived in Wisconsin, asked me to get her to the airport so they could get Amy into rehab.

The night before her early-morning flight, Amy stayed at my house to save time the next morning. She ‘borrowed’ my car at about 4 p.m. and didn’t come back. Coincidentally, a tornado hit Salt Lake that day. My concern for my friend was compounded by worry about my only transportation.
I had an idea where Amy might be and set out to bring her back. I found Amy at about midnight. The house was a converted apartment building in a seedy part of Salt Lake City. Sure enough, my car was parked nearby. I literally stepped over drugged-out bodies on the porch and knocked on the door. Amy let me in with a whispered warning that I shouldn’t have come there – it was a dangerous situation.

Amy took me into the kitchen where two women and a young man were alternately smoking meth and shooting heroin. When the man passed me the pipe, I bluntly said, “Thanks but I’m trying to cut back.” I didn’t want them to think I was such an outsider, which might escalate the situation.

I was amazed by the conversation. Amy’s ‘friends’ were trying to turn her out – get her into prostitution. She was young, pretty and vulnerable. The two women who coached her looked old, haggard and spent. One woman stuck a needle in her own vein as she told Amy how good life as a prostitute could be. As the drug entered her blood, her words trailed off and the woman’s head bobbled and fell to her chest, the needle still dangling from her arm. Fifteen minutes later, she awoke with a jerk and continued talking as if she never stopped.

“Is this what you want?” I silently pleaded with Amy. We finally left after 4 a.m. and I successfully got her to board the plane. I never heard from her again and can only hope she got the help she needed.

I moved to Sedona shortly afterward. Several years later I went home to visit family and old friends. I ran into a guy I used to shoot pool with who invited me to a house party. It turned out to be a small group – about five people – gathered in an old auto shop.

My acquaintance introduced me to the strangers as an old friend. “She used to be a cop,” he announced. I was never a cop, but I did work in law enforcement for nearly 10 years. One guy who seemed to be the leader of this group looked at me narrowly. He was shirtless and his chest was caved in, I presumed, from years of drug abuse. “Psychiatric discharge,” I lied, which seemed enough to keep me out of trouble.

I sipped on beer while those people smoked meth from tiny glass pipes for two hours. Both pipes eventually broke, having been dropped on the cement floor several times. I watched wide-eyed as the man with the sunken chest took the filament out of a light bulb and deftly poked a little carb hole in the delicate glass. That night I learned what lengths addicts will go to get a fix.

In 2004, I interviewed two Sedona children who had lost both parents to meth-related deaths in less than a year. The girl, then about 12, showed no emotion as she described finding her dead mother. “Dad, mom’s dead,” she said flatly, recounting how she broke the news to her father who was passed out on the couch.

In 2006, I interviewed several female inmates at the Yavapai County Jail in Prescott. Of about 40 women in the cell block, about 90 percent were meth users, whether that was directly the reason for their incarceration or not. Most said they used meth because they couldn’t afford pain medication for various injuries or ailments.

“Oh, it takes toothaches away like that,” Nick said, snapping his fingers when I asked if this was true. “It’s a straight-up pain killer.” He joked about the serious side-effect that some people loose teeth to meth abuse. “Hey, if you lose your teeth there’s no more pain.”

One inmate, Britney Bessler, is now serving a prison sentence for her part in a shooting death during a drug deal gone wrong. As she flipped through crime scene photos in her court papers, Bessler cried. “He was my best friend,” she said of the victim.

These memories were crystal clear (pun intended) as I talked to several meth users for this article. I imagined them in that dark space where the fix is the only thing that matters – above their jobs, their lovers and their children. I still don’t know why they start using. I don’t understand it. But, I feel compassion because each one is shrouded in a dark sadness and almost tangibly reaching out for help.

I sense a disconnection between these lost souls and the machine that purports to save them.

The women at Prescott’s jail said the system is designed to keep them down, once they are in it. Fines are set so high that people must choose between paying them or buying food, medicine and paying rent, they said. Court-ordered counseling is a farce, they said, a sham that keeps people employed but does little more than go through the motions with little real benefit for the users.

Real treatment is too expensive, they said. As Nick put it, many can’t afford $12,000 for private treatment and, in his perception, the alternative is to get arrested and be put into less effective court-ordered treatment.

A MATForce report stated there are ample funded sources for treatment in the Verde Valley but addicts don’t often seek treatment. They are usually forced into it by family or the legal system.

As I reported the story, I sadly realized how both sides are so close, yet miles apart. Sedona City Councilman Rob Adams acknowledged that people like Nick – those who don’t qualify for state help, but don’t have the money to get treatment on their own – may be falling through the cracks.

I don’t have the answer. I can only hope that by telling the story from the other side, the public can discern truth and misconceptions on both sides and work toward a real solution.
Read more!

Reader Feedback

Here's some email feedback on my recent public transit article :

Thank you, Cyndy, for writing such informative articles about our City government. You cover things beautifully, providing helpful background information. I get info in SedonaBiz that we can not find in the Red Rock News. Keep up the great work!

Carol Wirkus
Sedona resident


Cyndy:

I wanted you to know that your article was one of the most factually accurate I have ever seen. In my experience reporters often get even simple stories wrong. Your story covered 4 plus years of history and got everything right. This is refreshing and appreciated.

Thanks!

Jeff
Jeff Meilbeck
NAIPTA General Manager Read more!

Dead Nazis and Broken Noses: Sedona rejects vacation rentals

by Cyndy Hardy
Appears in the March issue of The Noise. Available for reprints.

SEDONA, Feb. 19 – A random stranger recently told me that if he lived in Germany during WWII and a couple of SS soldiers showed up at his house asking if he was hiding Jews in his basement, “I’d have two dead Nazis on my porch and Jews in my basement.”

The violent image shocked me. This wasn’t about Jews and Nazis. We were talking about how people pick and choose what laws they abide, specifically people who operate more than 400 illegal short-term vacation rentals in Sedona. His point was that government has absolutely no right to dictate what a person does with private property and that a person is justified to use any means – legal or not – to fight government interference.

While my new friend and I talked coffeehouse politics, an old saying kept running through my mind like a tune that won’t go away: “Your right to punch me in the nose ends where my nose begins.” Given his passionate stance against government interference, how far should full-time residents go to protect their own property rights and neighborhoods?

There’s a feud brewing between neighbors in Sedona that will inevitably end up in court – potentially diverting taxpayer dollars from road and sewer projects; pedestrian safety and nonprofit subsidies – to fight a classic battle: city zoning versus private property rights.

The city is caught in the crossfire: those who illegally operate vacation rentals say the zoning amounts to an unlawful “taking” of their property; some full-time residents say by not enforcing its zoning, the city diminishes their property right. The city is further pinned down by an old law it couldn’t enforce; a new law meant to fix that; and a generalized public image that government is always the bad guy.

Illegal vacation rentals became a hot issue at City Hall in 2007. While they may be cozy and homey for the tourists, some full-time residents say these rentals are a nuisance: increased traffic, overcrowding, loud music and generally unsettling to people who find security in knowing their neighbors.

Vacation renters do not behave and take care of a property the way full-time residents do, according to resident Bob Cleland.

Short-term vacation rentals are homes that tourists rent for less than 30 days instead of staying in hotel rooms. Vacation rentals in Sedona are usually upscale single-family homes in residential neighborhoods, but can include condominiums, duplexes, and multifamily homes.

City code limits lodging uses to specific zones and short-term rentals in residential zones have specifically been illegal in Sedona since about 1995.

People on vacation often like to party, according to resident Helen Knoll, an attorney who lives near illegal vacation rentals. Sometimes there are four or five cars per household, she said. The government has a right to put reasonable controls on property rights, and she supports the city’s ban on residential short-term rentals. “It’s hard to party for 30 days; not so hard to party for seven nights,” Ms. Knoll said.

“I understand that the ordinance is on the books. That doesn’t make it right,” Stephen Schwartz, an attorney and part-time Sedona resident who has counseled local short-term rental operators, said at the Sedona City Council’s Jan. 22 meeting.

Mr. Schwartz invoked Magna Carta, saying that renting one’s home is a fundamental property right and they city has no legitimate government interest in banning it.

“If that were true,” Sedona City Attorney Mike Goimarac said, “then every homeowner could rent for less than 30 days,” There are more than 6,000 homes in Sedona. “The question is do you still have a residential neighborhood?” he asked. Neighborhood complaints were the driving force behind recent attention to short-term rental violations, according to Goimarac.

Ann Schwartz, a short-term rental advocate, said complaints have been minimal. I talked to Sedona Code Enforcement Officers Jim Windham and John Egan a few days after the meeting. They agreed with Ms. Schwartz, saying the city has received less than 10 complaints in the past eight months, which is typical for any given year. They also said complaints are recorded by residence, not necessarily by occurance, and that most of the complaints come from a small number of rentals.

Paul Kanter and his wife, Sue Meyer, have a Seattle, Wash. address and own five properties in the Sedona area, according to Yavapai and Coconino County records. Ms. Meyer is president of Sedona Vacation Rental Solutions Association, an organization of vacation rental operators spearheading opposition to the city’s short-term rental laws.

I asked if flagrantly breaking the law was the best way to get what they wanted. Mr. Kanter said many people “did what they did” after researching the market and talking with city officials. “They were told, ‘yes it’s on the books but we don’t enforce it,’” he said.

Mr. Windham denied Mr. Kanter’s claim. In a typical scenario, Mr. Windham said, after receiving complaints from neighbors he would knock on the door of a suspected illegal vacation rental only to be told the occupants were friends or family of the owner. There’s no law against letting your family stay in your second (third, or fifth) home. By the time any given case could be investigated, the tourists were long gone and not likely to come back to be witnesses in a prosecution.

Even if the city could execute a prosecution, the existing law only allows a $250 fine, which operators could easily write off as a cost of doing business. It’s easier to prove they are operating vacation rentals by finding the ads than it is to prove a tenant isn’t a friend, Mr. Goimarac said. He drafted an ordinance to ban advertisements on illegal rentals and the City Council was set to pass it in November 2007.

No longer under the radar, SVRSA members came to the table with their own draft ordinance to legalize and regulate short-term rentals between seven and 30 days where not prohibited by homeowners associations. The draft ordinance proposed permits, regulated the number of people allowed per room and required operators to pay bed taxes.

The city also received a warning shot in the form of a letter from Florida civil attorney Richard G. Rumrell, who represents Steve Milo in a current short-term rental lawsuit against Venice, Fla. The letter warned the city that its ban is unconstitutional and asked the City Council to defer its decision until he could brief the city.

The city retained its own outside counsel, Perkins Coie, Brown & Bain and, “after receiving more public input in subsequent work sessions the Council, opted to stick with our current ban on short-term rentals,” Mr. Goimarac said, essentially saying ‘no thanks’ to SVRSA’s bid for amnesty.

The Sedona City Council passed the ordinance at its Jan. 22 meeting making it illegal to advertise short-term rentals. Violators face a class 1 misdemeanor with fines up to $2,500, up to six months in jail and possible civil penalties. Each day a violation continues constitutes a separate offense. The law was set to take effect on Feb 22.

Publicly, council members and city staff said “it’s about the integrity of neighborhoods” and “the city’s right to enforce its zoning.” Illegal vacation rental operators cried foul, saying the law would hurt out-of-state owners who rent out their Sedona homes to pay the mortgage with the dream of someday moving here for good.

Something doesn’t add up. On the surface, just below the platitudes, it seems the City Council may have snubbed SVRSA for minor trespasses: the numerous emails from short-term rental supporters – so many that one city official called them a nuisance; the threatening letter from Mr. Rumrell, who reportedly wouldn’t say who he represented.

Deeper down, the City Council may have reacted to pressure from various homeowners associations that “didn’t have the huevos,” according to Vice Mayor Jerry Frey, to enforce their bylaws, putting the burden of enforcing and defending zoning back on the city. “They made the city the bad guy on this,” Mr. Frey said.

Since Jan. 22, “We have happily observed that many entities have already voluntarily modified their internet advertisements to delete references to daily or weekly rates,” Mr. Goimarac said.

But, what has the city really stopped? Web sites that once blatantly advertised daily and weekly rates now simply advertise a monthly rate – some as high as $18,000 – or direct the customer to contact the owner or agent for pricing. Even if the operators charge a monthly rate, how can the city stop them from refunding three weeks of the fee?

One way might be to catch them before they finish updating their Web sites. Foothills Property Management’s site lists a vacation home called Serene Phalet in Uptown. There are no daily or weekly rates listed, but when you check availability the calendar highlights a one-week minimum stay.

Probably, Mr. Goimarac now has two laws to enforce – the code banning short-term rentals and the new law that criminalizes advertisements for them – and seemingly no better tools to do it than he started with. Sedona does not levy residential property tax, does not require business licensing and does not enforce its business registration ordinance.

Outside tools haven’t changed, either. The city gets its sales tax information from the Arizona Department of Revenue. Yavapai and Coconino Counties tax rental properties differently than owner-occupied properties, but they don’t often audit occupancy use, Mr. Frey said. Anyone doing business in Arizona, including vacation rental owners, must register with the Arizona Corporations Commission, according to Public Information Officer Rebecca Wilder.

Anyone who – for profit – solicits, arranges or accepts reservations or money for occupancies of thirty-one or fewer days in a dwelling on behalf of another must have an Arizona real estate license, according to Tom Adams, assistant commissioner of investigations for the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

“If a Web site advertises available property and says ‘contact us,’ they need a license. If the information says to contact the owner, they don’t,” Mr. Adams said.

Perhaps another consequence is lost revenue. For a city government often accused of being “in bed” with business interests, the Sedona City Council did not opt to compromise with short-term operators. Odd, since city revenues are leveling off as development nears build-out and the city is currently brainstorming how to avoid a deficit. Mr. Frey said the potential tax revenue was never really discussed.

There are about 2,410 legal lodging units in Sedona, including 1,530 hotel, motel, resort and bed & breakfast units; 796 timeshare units; and 84 lockouts, according to the city’s 2007 Land Use and Population Report. There are about 448 advertised illegal vacation rentals, according to Mr. Goimarac’s investigations.

Legal Sedona lodging businesses pay a three percent hotel bed tax; timeshares pay an “in lieu” fee. Lumped together in the budget, bed tax is the city’s second largest revenue source, generating an estimated $1,527,727 for Fiscal Year 2007/2008.

Short-term rental operators do not pay bed tax. “We can’t tax them for something that is illegal,” Mr. Goimarac said. They would have paid taxes if SVRSA’s proposed ordinance had been accepted, according to Mr. Schwartz. “They wanted to,” Mr. Schwartz said.
Other communities have found ways to – pardon the pun – accommodate short-term rentals.

“Aspen is highly dependent on short term accommodations’ rentals for our economic existence. It’s part of what defines a resort economy,” said Larry Thoreson, sales tax administrator for the city of Aspen, where all short term rentals are subject to a combined sales and lodging tax rate of 9.6%.

Technically, short-term rentals are not allowed in residential zones in Aspen. “We know who they are, they must report and pay sales and lodging taxes, and they are occasionally audited by the state or city to keep them honest,” Mr. Thoreson said. “Any attempts on the city’s part to enforce our zoning would merely end such rentals and the attendant tax revenues.”

Complaints are rare in Aspen, according to Mr. Thoreson. “If you could afford a multi-million dollar property, would you be interested in the possibility of members of the lower classes occupying your abode, even if only briefly?” he asked. The average property value is about $6.5 million, and most rentals are handled by property managers who collect and remit the appropriate taxes, he said.

Short-term rentals are allowed in Telluride residential zones, according to the town planning department’s Mike Davenport. “There is a 2% excise tax on these units that is applied to the financial guarantee provided to airlines serving Telluride,” he said.

Telluride codes limit short-term use through deed restrictions to 30 consecutive days or
60 days per year. Units must be registered and submit a semi-annual report to the
Planning Director, Mr. Davenport said.

Flagstaff basically ignores illegal vacation rentals, according to Community Code Administrator Roger Eastman – who lives in Sedona and was the city’s senior long range planner before his position with Flagstaff. “Logic suggests that residential uses are for more than 30 days, but this is not specifically stated, which makes it hard to enforce. And as this is such a non-issue; we don't get more than one or two complaints a year, so we do not worry about them,” he said.

Mr. Frey said the city did not really look at how other cities handled residential short-term rentals, although he said he asked staff for the information. So, enforcement it is.

SVRSA members who talked to me after the Jan. 22 City Council meeting refused further interviews. “I spoke with our attorney and he advised me not to discuss the issue at this time. Once our lawsuit is filed, it will become self evident what actions we are taking going forward,” Ms. Meyer said.

The coffee is cold. As I pour the last of it into a planter, I wonder who will win the upcoming battle. Dead Nazis and broken noses, I think, and move on to the next article.
Read more!

Private road on USFS land is imminent, condemnation is not

by Cyndy Hardy
Appears in the March issue of The Noise. Available for reprint.

SEDONA, Feb. 12 – The Sedona City Council backed off a possible eminent domain action amid high cost estimates and doubts a condemnation could pass legal muster. As a result, U.S. Forest Service land may be razed in an area southeast of Airport Mesa and west of Hwy. 179 for a private 400-foot bridge over Oak Creek and ¾-mile road to a new gated subdivision.

Since about 1992, Sedona residents Bruce Tobias and Robert and Carol Flynn have sought access to their three undeveloped parcels, totaling about 27 acres, which are landlocked by USFS and private land, including that owned by residents of the Oak Creek Cliffs subdivision.

The city of Sedona owns part of Oak Creek Cliffs Drive, from Hwy. 179 to the city’s wastewater lift station. The rest, including a low-water crossing on Oak Creek, belongs to the neighborhood homeowners association. The road terminates east of the Tobias/Flynn site with a small strip of USFS land in between.

“The USFS required us to exhaust all other options before they would consider an easement,” Mr. Tobias said. Two major options were an agreement with Oak Creek Cliffs residents and suing the USFS.

Oak Creek Cliffs residents will not allow Tobias/Flynn access through their neighborhood. Its residents do not want the added traffic likely if the landlocked property is fully developed. Oak Creek Cliffs has about 20 homes; Tobias/Flynn is zoned for minimum 35,000-square-foot lots, meaning its owners could build up to 33 homes. Mr. Tobias and Mr. Flynn have said they intend to build their own homes and a few others.

Roderick Rawlins has been an Oak Creek Cliffs Homeowners Association board member since 1986. “We know so little about this project, you couldn’t get an intelligent question to ask the board,” he said at the Feb. 12 City Council meeting.

Moving on with their options, Tobias/Flynn successfully sued the forest service in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in September 2002; the court ordered the USFS to grant access. Not much has happened in nearly six years. “That’s why I want more government control over my forest,” Vice Mayor Jerry Frey said, sarcastically.

Use of forest service land requires a National Environmental Policy Act study to compare a proposed route to other options. The NEPA study did not begin until 2007. “Ours is a small project that continued not to be heard,” unless they paid USFS a fee to expedite the matter, Mr. Tobias said.

The preferred route being studied lies within city limits. The proposed bridge would be about 70-feet high on one side and about 30-feet high on the other. Part of the proposed road would parallel Hwy. 179.

As part of the study, the USFS sought comment from the city. In April 2007 the City Council brought up concerns about environmental impact of a new road through virgin forest land when a more suitable route was available through Oak Creek Cliffs. The city estimates a lower profile 460-foot bridge could be built that would be 12-feet high on one side and 16-feet high on the other. The road would be about 0.25 miles, a third as long as the road proposed by USFS.

The City Council, aware of its role as joint custodian of public land, considered condemnation to force access through Oak Creek Cliffs. If the council acted quickly, its preferred route could be included in the current NEPA study. Otherwise, USFS would require a new study for the small strip between the private parties’ property.

Condemnation presented several problems, though. The proposed USFS route will cost about $7.5 million, according to city estimates. The city’s proposed bridge and road would cost about $6.6 million for condemnation, construction and legal fees, not including the costs if homes were condemned. Mr. Tobias said he would contribute to the city’s costs, up to what he would pay for the USFS route, which is unclear.

Also, condemnation would surely result in legal action from Oak Creek Cliffs residents, driving up the city’s costs and potentially delaying the project during negotiations, litigation and appeals.

The council discussed public safety as a justification for condemnation. When Oak Creek floods residents and emergency vehicles cannot cross the low-water bridge. The bridge was impassable for several days during the Dec. 30, 2004 flood. Some Oak Creek Cliffs residents asked the city to improve the road, but the city does not own the part that needs fixing.

“[The Oak Creek Cliffs route] is better environmentally and it makes better sense, but if the residents are happy with a low-water crossing, they don’t see it that way,” said Councilwoman Nancy Scagnelli. Deciding that condemnation did not “rise to the benchmarks” for condemnation, the City Council ended its deliberations without action.

Residents said the USFS has a duty to find a suitable route. Paul Loef lives in Oak Creek Cliffs and opposes an easement through his neighborhood to Tobias/Flynn.

“If you wanted to proposed route that raised ire you could hardly do a better job,” Mr. Loef said.
Read more!

Sedona’s Desert Wetlands: A waste(water) of time and money?

Story and photo by Cyndy Hardy
Available for reprint

Something smells at the Sedona Wastewater Treatment Plant – and it isn’t just the sludge. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality’s 2002 mandate to Sedona to remove mass amounts of trees and foliage in the city’s three reclaimed water reservoirs went ignored. In August 2007, ADEQ Inspector Craig Brown discovered that not a shovel had been lifted. Now the dams are cracked and treated sewage may be leaking.

Today the main reservoir, which is supposed to be bare, looks like a full-blown riparian area. Ducks skit across the stunning blue pond and the Western slope looks like a nice place for a summer picnic. All that’s missing is a boat dock and some bikinis.

“We regularly see deer and wild cats in the mornings,” said Wastewater Director Pat Livingstone. She would like to catch illegal hunters who prey on the immigrant wildlife in the mornings, she said, pointing out horse tracks in the dirt road atop the dam that were not left by city staff. She was less concerned about the occasional groups of birdwatchers who visit the plant.

The animals are either unaware – or unconcerned – that the water they’re drinking and swimming in recently came from Sedona’s toilets. So, why should humans be concerned, aside from the nasty visuals?

First, the city doesn’t have many answers for why it did not take care of the vegetation five years ago before one of the dams cracked. Jim Johnson was director of wastewater in 2002 when ADEQ mandated the repairs. Mr. Johnson retired in 2006, replaced by Ms. Livingston.

When asked who was responsible for supervising Mr. Johnson and how he managed to evade compliance for four years, City Manager Eric Levitt referred to the chain of command.

In 2002 Mr. Johnson was under the supervision of then-assistant city manager Carol Johnson, who had served in the past as Assistant Public Works Director and City Engineer. Ms. Johnson has not worked for the city since at least April 2004. Wastewater was put under the direction of Public Works Director Charles Mosley.

Mr. Mosley was unavailable for comment because of a death in the family.

Second, how much revenue might the city have saved if Mr. Johnson had taken care of the problem five years ago? Construction costs have increased about 28 percent since 2004, according to the U.S. Department of Labor Statistic’s producer price index.

On Dec. 11, the Sedona City Council approved a $94,810 contract with Phoenix-based URS Corporation to prepare a plan and oversee the removal of the vegetation; develop construction cost estimates to repair the berms; write an operation and maintenance plan; and construct an access way to the valving in Reservoir #3. About $325,000 is budgeted for berm maintenance in Sedona’s 2007/2008 budget. The city expects much of that money will be carried over into the next fiscal year and plans to ask for an additional $275,000, according to city documents.

Third, if treated effluent is leaking, why aren’t the grassroots groups mobilized? Sedona’s wastewater plant is no Snowbowl, but treated effluent is treated effluent.

ADEQ found longitudinal cracks – one approximately 50 feet long and two feet deep – and possible transverse cracks. While ADEQ’s Aug. 24, 2007 report did not mention leaks, a Dec. 11 Sedona staff report to the City Council did: “Groundwater level monitoring indicates the dams may be leaking.”

Ms. Livingston said staff “put as much in [the City Council report] as possible to convince the public it needs to be done.”

The City Council unanimously approved the URS contract without comment.
Read more!