Sedona City Council takes no action on NSA designation

SEDONA, AZ (October 9, 2009) - The Sedona City Council at its special Oct. 7 meeting did not give a thumbs up or down to pending legislation that would designate Sedona a National Scenic Area.

An NSA designation would permanently ban land trades of Sedona area forest service lands for land outside greater Sedona.

After four hours of listening to public input and discussion, the council voted 7-0 to authorize the mayor to send a letter to Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D - District 1) informing her that the council approves the land trade provisions of Amendment 12 of the Forest Service Management Plan barring land trades outside Sedona boundaries and the council will not vote to support or oppose the NSA designation until it receives a draft of NSA legislation for Sedona.

Despite impassioned pleas by close to 20 citizens who spoke in favor of such designation, the council did not approve a city resolution urging congressional leaders to designate greater Sedona as a National Scenic Area that would have been named �The Sedona Red Rock National Scenic Area.�

Councilor Nancy Scagnelli said she did not believe the NSA designation would benefit Sedona because it could limit the city�s options and flexibility in dealing with land use and trade issues in the future.

She also said the U. S. Forest Service Amendment 12 fully protects Sedona against land trades between developers and the government, considered by some a threat to Sedona�s pristine nature and future.

�It�s about flexibility,� she said. �You just can�t put a stamp of forever on something that does not work. We have something that does work [Amendment 12]. I would say, if it�s not broken, don�t fix it. I�m not comfortable with forever.:

Mayor Rob Adams explained that the resolution was simply a request for Congress to move forward with a NSA designation for Sedona and to consider the concerns noted by the city in the resolution.

�It was strictly advisory in nature,� Mayor Adams said. �The resolution was not legislation.�

The mayor said he spent many hours in consultation with the city manager and city attorney to draft the resolution in a manner compatible to all parties.

�We put a lot of time and effort into it,� he said. �I thought the council would have approved it.�

In the resolution, the city urged Congress to approve NSA legislation for Sedona to conform to a number of provisions noted below:

Citizens speaking against the resolution expressed concerns an NSA designation could have unintended consequences; affect property rights, infrastructure, the school district, the fire district; add layers of government; compromise an alternate route for Sedona; and impact private utilities.

Concerns were also raised that the NSA designation could imperil the expansion of the Chapel of the Holy Cross in West Sedona.

�There is no denying an NSA designation creates a new legal body,� he said. �The Federal Government will have a new level of power if anything changes. It is a big risk. I don�t think we have to go there. There is no need to take chances with infrastructure and roads.�

Keep Sedona Beautiful President Steve DeVol said such concerns were fear tactics employed by those against the NSA designation for Sedona.

�I am speaking for the 600 KSB members and the 2,400 people who signed signatures,� he said. �We are making a mountain out of a molehill. All we want to do is stop land exchanges. Tonight you will hear fearful statements that are not true. You will hear we will not be able to expand the school district and NSA will create a new layer of government. That is not true.�

Further support for the NSA designation came in a letter from Yavapai County Board of Supervisor Chairman Chip Davis.

�As Yavapai County District 3 Supervisor, I am in support of legislation to make the Sedona-Red Rock National Scenic Area (NSA),� he wrote. �A Sedona-Red Rock NSA designation in the Coconino National Forest will establish a means in which to protect and preserve the scenic quality and natural resources of approximately 160,000 acres while restoring and enhancing the natural and historic values of the area. The NSA designation will permanently protect the National Forest lands from land trades and unwanted future development while enabling the community to provide needed schools, roads and other public necessities in the future.�

Coconino County Supervisor complimented staff on the resolution and expressed hope congress would consider the city�s concerns.

�As we go through the process we have to make sure legislation remains consistent with our plan,� he said. �Staff did an excellent job. I like the congresswoman�s approach in taking input.�

Resort owner Al Spector, whose businesses employ 400 people, spoke in favor of the resolution and an NSA designation for Sedona.

He said Amendment 12 wasn�t strong enough to protect against land trades should members in Congress decide to change it. An NSA designation would prevent them from doing so permanently.

�Amendment 12 is not strong enough,� he said. �There can be bad changes. I�m in favor of [the National Scenic Area designation] because it takes away the potential for bad changes.�

The Mayor had hoped to provide Rep. Kirkpatrick with the resolution so she could use the provisions in drafting NSA legislation she has stated she would push.

However, Democrats of the Red Rocks President Angela LeFevre threw a monkey wrench into the proceedings when she announced the congresswoman would have a draft resolution ready within a few days of the meeting.

�[A member of Kirkpatrick�s staff] said they were done with it, through with it,� she said. �They said they had a few things to finish. He said you will all be hearing from Ann in a few days.�

Councilor Hamilton suggested waiting for the draft of the NSA designation before moving forward with a resolution.

�The legislation will be out tomorrow,� he said. �It�s a moot point. I didn�t know the train left the station. We are struggling to spend time word-smithing the resolution when we don�t know what it is going to be.�

�We are not in a position to reject or support the legislation,� Councilor Marc DiNunzio said. �Whether it�s good or not depends on what is drafted.�

At that point the council�s direction shifted from discussing the wording of the resolution and the value of a NSA designation for Sedona and focused on the wording of a letter to Rep. Kirkpatrick.

�The City Council supports the land-trade provisions of Amendment 12 of the Forest Service Plan. Without seeing pending legislation from Congresswoman Kirkpatrick, we cannot endorse or oppose the National Scenic Area designation.�

As of this writing, the Congresswoman�s draft of NSA legislation has not been received.

Mayor Adams expressed disappointment that the resolution had to be put on the back burner.

Readers' comments

#1 I find it of interest that outside of Ron Volkmann the reporter only quoted speakers that are PRO NSA leaving the other half with an apposing view out of the story. What a loss, as the readers of SedonaBiz were denied the opportunity to read the opinions of everyday citizens not affiliated with any special interest group or organizations. I do hope for more balanced coverage on local issues in the future.

#2 I was at that NSA Designation Discussion/Public Meeting on Wednesday, and put some comments forward, as President of the Democrats of the Red Rocks, and as someone who has been involved in the process of obtaining Ann Kirkpatrick�s support and commitment to put forward the required legislation.

I was not surprised at the outcome of the meeting. I was impressed with the high quality of discussion and input and saddened by the fact that the Council could not come out and in principle support the notion of an NSA Designation.

Having said that, I do take offense to the comment written in the article regarding my disclosure that draft legislation is imminent. It seems that this is news to members of the Council. They should read Ann�s News Release, made in Sedona, when she came last month to announce her support of the Designation and to announce her drafting of the legislation.

I cannot figure out why my comments would �put a spanner in the works� so to speak.

First of all, comments on the NSA Designation were being requested by Ann and her staff all during the summer. She made that clear by sending a letter to hundreds of people who had been involved in these discussions in and around the Sedona area. They had the chance to give their input. Many had already done so. Ann made it clear that her deadline was July 31^st. Where was the Council prior to this? KSB, DORR and the Big Park Council were able to put together forums and debates. Why not the Sedona council? I know individual members did. They knew perfectly well Ann was trying to make a decision and do her �due diligence�. And then at the beginning of the Sedona Fair last month, she made her decision public � that she would draft such legislation. She would then ask for public input.

I was thus somewhat surprised and confused to hear that the Council would FINALLY meet to discuss the NSA Designation � on October 7^th. Councilors should have known that Ann is going ahead, so comments about that would be redundant. Comment on the text of the draft needs to be made � absolutely � but surely this should be done AFTER the draft has been released�which should happen any time now, but has not happened yet. How can you intelligently make comments on a draft which does not exist? Yes, we can spend all day discussing the old draft, written nearly four years ago. But if we really want to have input into the new legislation, wouldn�t it have been logical to wait until this comes out � whether this be tomorrow, next week, or the week after?

So please don�t blame me for messing up the Council�s agenda. The Council�s agenda has been badly timed to begin with. Let�s be real about this. Any meaningful discussion by the Council should have taken place;

During the time of Due Diligence to give input to Ann

After the draft legislation is released, since Ann has already made the decision to go ahead with this.

Respectfully yours,

Angela LeFevre

#3 If reader number 1 wants to read about anti NSA comments all he has to do is spend fifty cents to read the Red Rock News. You can get all the anti-NSA propoganda you want. This is why we need Sedona.biz.

#4 I was at the meeting and it was apparent from the start no matter what happened the council majority was going to knock it down. I feel for the proponents and the mayor and the city staff that tried so hard to put the resolution together the council could agree upon.

The more intelligent council members in opposition to the NSA designation knew better and they saw the resolution as a rubber stamp asking Congress to go ahead with legislation. Period! And that�s what the resolution was � basically an approval of an NSA. The approval of that resolution no matter how it was tweaked or wordsmithed was not going to fly, not while the present majority remains in place. If even the pleas of powerful businessmen failed to sway them, nothing ever will. Plain and simple, the leadership of the council majority is a lot smarter than the council minority.

Further, what impetus does Rep. Kirkpatrick have in moving forward with NSA legislation when she knows darn well Sedona�s council majority is not going to back it in any shape or form and no matter how it reads? How can she without embarrassment move the legislation forward if the council is against it or at best ambivalent? Without council backing it has no spine, no foundation and no chance of seeing the light of day. Once again, the majority wins, just like with the lights for 89A. I�ll bet a penny to a dollar that draft resolution will probably remain in limbo until she has proof the council will support it. So instead of concentrating their efforts on getting the legislation, proponents should be concentrating on changing the council majority.

#5 The pro NSA groups should stop complaining and take action. Between KSB, the Sierra Club and Democrats of the Red Rocks they would have a voting block of about 2,000.

This voting bloc can easily affect the outcome of the next city council election. Unfortunatly, there will be at least two and maybe three appointees against NSA remaining.

So these groups need to elect four council members who want it.

Further, more than 20 people spoke for NSA and 8 against. That's more than 2-to-1. In the article a council member and community member were quoted in opposition. A community leader and a county supervisor were quoted for it. In response to poster number 1, that is balance.

#6 Why residents can�t tolerate the City�s Public Meetings

There is a pervasive and insidious shroud of secrecy that permeates the City�s �public meetings.� A prime example of this occurred at the recent October 7th City Council meeting.

Aside from our local media misinterpreting the overall positive response from the Sedona residents for the City to accept and support the NSA, they also failed their obligation to expose specific presenters speaking against its adoption primary affiliations; both commercial, personal and associations with City organizations and thus added to the general perception that only �ordinary� citizens with no vested interests in the NSA outcome spoke.

To whit, Mr. Martinez innocently introduced himself as a 20 plus year Sedona resident significantly neglecting to note that he is a principle in Schrader-Martinez one of Sedona�s major construction firms, and that he is the husband of Linda Martinez the head of the City�s Housing Commissions. Of course, no Council person dared to question this.

Equally unsettling are the unspoken and unpublished alliances that exist between school board members Bobbie Surer and Tommy Stovall. Mrs. Surber�s is Councilor Dan Surber�s wife. You may recall that Dan Surber resigned his appointment on the Planning and Zoning Commission to run for City Council and frequently attends Housing Commission meetings). His wife and serves on the Sedona School Board and who formerly worked for Al Specter. Tommy Stovall is the former Council member Marc Sterling�s partner. If the City has a nepotism policy is it followed?

Even specific non-profit organizations (e,g, the Sedona Chamber of Commerce, the Sedona Arts Center, the Sedona �Public� Library, etc.) need to come clean about their iinappropriate relationship with the City who subsidizes their operations. The Sedona Chamber needs to reveal its incestuous relationship to the public with the City who donates close to 622K/ per year to keep it in existence. The public has a right to understand these alliances and how they are affecting City policy.

Furthermore, since individual Council members fail to initiate requests about the presenters more detailed information regarding his/her private and business information, why isn�t the Mayor stepping forth to do so?

The onus then, reverts back to all local media to publish such information which thus far, it has consistently failed to do so. Unless and until this happens in Sedona, we cannot hope to attract principled public servants to run for public office.

Nancy Baer