By Sylvia Sepielli
Sedona, AZ — The Master Plan dated July 2025 is a progress report of surveys, discussions, design options and assumptions.
https://plansedona.com/master-plan-july-2025-draft?document=1
If this were a private project looking for investors, underlying feasibility studies, fiscal and developmental requirements would be mandatory. The City of Sedona is the owner/developer, with debt on the property.
It also controls zoning, building codes, design review, approvals, oversees the Fiscal Budgets and City Funds, as well as determines the Master Developer and how parcels to individual developers will be sold. This closed-circuit control affects all residents for better or worse.
Fiscal year budget 2023 showed the City had approximately $38 million in outstanding excise tax revenue bonds. According to the RRNews* “The annual payments on the existing bonds are $6.8 million, and by the time they are paid off in 2042, they will have cost the city over $57 million.” The new Cultural Park bond $10 million issuance was said to increase the city’s debt by 26.8%. Based on the expected annual payment, the total cost of the bond issue will be in the range of $13.6 million.”
Flexible conditions in the bonds, were initiated to prevent others from changing the guarantee to the USFS that 50% of the land be open to the public. It appears that flexibility enables the City to make that or other changes without such limitations.
INTENT
Current plan clearly shows a Housing Development with 430 units and new build community spaces consuming 29.4 of the 41 acres, leaving only 11.6 acres of “Natural Open Space”. I suggest this ratio be inverted.
Though worth considering, affordable housing on this complex site is a fallacy. Is the all-in development cost of the 11.4 acres containing 430 units known? How does that cost compare to flat parcels like The Dells?
MASTER DEVELOPMENT & PHASING (pgs 74- 76)
‘Master Developer oversees:
- Large-scale grading of development sites to ensure build-ready parcels.
- Construction of roadways and utilities funded through the Community Facilities District (CFD). Drainage improvements including wash modification to meet regulatory and environmental requirements.
- Opportunities to incorporate community benefits (community park, recreation center) within the mass grading plan.’
This section alone should give pause to anyone supporting the Plan. Even if utilities initially terminate at one point of each Block, the excavation and clearance of land will expose a large swath of the land.
Utilities’ cost – consider the recent 45% rate increase by Arizona Water Company. What’s next?
Please read the Key to Success section on pg 74. Can the City execute this in a fiscally responsible and timely manner? The City is known for its notoriously slow approach to design review and approval process. It can take years for an existing commercial building renovation, let alone an entire community with different developers.
Transfer of Development Rights
When the City purchased the Cultural Park in 2022, some thought it would possibly be protective stewards of the land. Housing was included either without fully understanding the complexities and incumbent costs of developing affordable housing on the land, or, despite it.
Timeline Trusting private developers to decide when or if to get involved, offers no indication of a schedule. After Phase One is complete, the land may linger as a construction site for years. The City should provide best/worst-case timelines.
FISCAL CONSIDERATION
- What will this project truly cost? Is there a financial analysis for funding, project costs, revenue, and operational projections?
- I recommend the City provide live, on-going access to all budgets & expenses of the Cultural Park. Millions of dollars can be spent before formal plans even begin.
- Third party cost estimates on all development aspects whether presumed to be City or private entities should be provided. Neither residents nor the City should approve plans without this knowledge.
- Sedona City Parks & Rec doesn’t have a segmented P&L statement to assess revenue & expenses of Posse Grounds Park. There is no way to understand this project’s financial burden, short or long term.
- Other real estate related City ventures are running over budget & schedule.
- City should operate only the park aspects of the development. Private/City agreements for Amphitheatre, Rec Center, Cultural buildings are recommended. Ever-increasing City staff requirements must be mitigated.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDIES
Comprehensive studies of the land, bio swales, flooding, wildlife, water usage & conservation, hard scape building & parking related climate effects are needed. The only study appears to be one that determined the site did not contain toxic materials.
The Plan refers to “abiding by requirements”. Until those requirements with incumbent costs and impact on this site are identified decisions cannot responsibly be made.
TAKE ACTION
Yavapai College Sedona
YC uses ancillary parking on Cultural Park land. Were those spaces taken into consideration on overall parking count?
A physical enrollment attendance and facility utilization of the Sedona Campus review is needed. Which facilities could become part of the Sedona Recreation & Cultural Park experience? This may reduce land use and new buildings
Take a hike
The Cultural Park is chained off with “No Trespassing” signs. Residents should walk the site to make informed decisions. Can Council and City employees provide guided tours?
No housing; sign petitions
Wells Fargo Sunday Market “Sedona Cultural Park Preservation Act” petition; visit https://sedonavotes.com/
“Save Sedona Arizona Cultural Park” https://www.change.org/p/save-the-sedona-arizona-cultural-park?source_location=search
Editor’s Note: “Sylvia Sepielli is Founder and Principle of www.sylviaplannganddesign.com (SPAd LLC est. 1994). She has worked shoulder to shoulder with owners and developers on well over 50 new-build mixed use, hospitality, and spa/wellness projects around the globe. As Lead Concept & Facility Designer specializing in spa/wellness, her scope of work also includes guidance and impact on all aspects of a project, through all phases of concept and construction to opening and in many cases, staying involved until operations is financially stabilized. The process and predictability of spectacular success, or failure, of any complex endeavor depends, in large part on strategy and preparation from conception. Her insight and ability to quickly see red flags, or solid ground, has served her when determining which projects to pursue.”
This is an advertisement
5 Comments
Ok you don’t like it…..It cost to much…yet at the same time want more open space which would make the overall project cost more?
Yes its called infrastructure….Sewers, electric, storm drains to mention a few.
With as good of a background you have, none of this should be shocking or a surprise?
You had a opportunity to buy it for 15 years. City steps in now everyone cares about it?
Like always, the things people worry about I find troubling.
As it sat vacant for all this time, not one person cared? I think there is far more behind this curtain!
You make some good points. I like the call to segment out the P/L of Parks n Rec!
I would however, like to talk to some of your points:
RE: Affordable housing
This term is problematic. We should switch to use Workforce Housing or Attainable Housing as phrases, which are less confusing. We’re taking about the city and many others wanting a product at a price less that 30% of income in a range of 80% – 120% of AMI (Area Median Income). Another name for this is The Missing Middle Housing.
RE: Build costs
The price per unit to build is interesting, and costs should not run away. Some units I presume will be for sale at market rate, so the market rate is the building cap. For rented units, the build cost per unit metric is useless on it’s own. You need to factor maturity of the project. Rents recoup the build cost over some number of decades. The higher the per unit build price, the longer it takes to recoup the cost. That’s it. Nothing more to argue about really.
RE: Being protective stewards of the land
Anyone who didn’t know the city purchased the land principally for housing wasn’t paying attention, and certainly didn’t attend the meeting where they agreed to buy the property. Go back and watch that meeting. I was there and heard councilors state their intent. And since then, I’ve confirmed with several councilors that were on council at the time that the intent was clear: it was for housing with public amenities.
RE: Transfer of Development Rights
Your content under this heading didn’t talk to TDR’s which are a legal construct to allow building in sensitive areas by locking up land (preventing development) in another area. So not sure what you’re saying here.
RE: “Third party cost estimates on all development aspects whether presumed to be City or private entities should be provided.”
There is significant cost to develop estimates that run into hundreds of pages. Is it a thing for developers to do a bunch of up front work for free with none of the impediments removed first? Do you support the city spending money to pay multiple developers to craft the estimates you’re asking for? It just doesn’t seem like estimates ahead of plan approval is a thing, at least at this scale of development.
Sean, thanks for your perspective. Adds balance to this editorial. Who publishes Sedona Biz? Certainly not proponents of the Sedona business community. This author’s effort to redefine the original vision and rationale for public investment is off base.
The facility as is, is pretty much worthless with its aging wooden arches supporting a heavy cover ready to collapse due to aging and dri rot. It’s the land that has value so why not put it to good use in a manner that most benefits the entire community rather than a select few nostalgic music fans who dream of the impossible. Even big name bands like Depeche Mode are playing smaller venues rather than the bigger ones which require enormous amounts of infrastructure, security and electricity to be of any concert value. We already have several other small music venues around town. I say keep it as natural as possible and as useful as possible, as in “workforce” or “affordable” housing as has been suggested. Seems like the best use of an unused eye sore and hazard. Another resort, another golf course or another music venue would just be plain ignorant and insulting.
Doesn’t anyone find it troubling that there was at least one developer prior to the city who proposed a housing plan, at their expense, that was rejected because of land use, water scarcity and added traffic?
So now we are carrying $10 million in debt, and own a piece of land that is difficult to develop that is being proposed by a city that is slow to approve, runs overbudet in almost every venture and has a history of making bad decisions.
And now it is OK?
1. Population decrease, same tourist levels, and a budget that went from $49 million 7 years ago to over $100 million today with a huge staff increase.
2. Possee Groubds fiasco
3. Forest Road blowout budget, law suits everywhere….city lost all if them.
4. Initial Uotownn redesign, backs up traffic back on 179 and 88a N.
5. Free shuttles
6. Local transport, ridiculous ride cost= negative revues.
This list goes on.