It was a bit of he said, she said during a recent City Council meeting regarding the next phase of a multi-million drainage project.

During the Oct. 25 Sedona City Council meeting, city staff was requesting direction regarding a proposal from Tlaquepaque for a cost-share reduction from $250,000 to $150,000 for the Soldier Wash Phase 4 Drainage Improvements. In the end, council decided to not take action on the matter and instead, discuss it at a later date.

Construction work of the Phase 4 improvements is anticipated to be split over fiscal years 2017 and 2018 by the city.

The proposed Phase 4 improvements for Soldier Wash will create capacity in the wash to meet the city standard of the 25-year storm event from the downstream side of the Brewer Road crossing to Oak Creek, a city report states.

The report goes on to state that in 2013 there was an understanding between the city and Tlaquepaque and Los Abrigados that each would contribute $250,000 apiece for Phase 4 since it directly impacts those two properties. Both sustained damage during the monsoon floods of 2009 and 2011. Recently, the board of Los Abrigados has verified it will only be willing to contribute $150,000 toward Phase 4 if that amount is approved for Tlaquepaque.

“The initial position of the city was that the flooding problems inherent with these two commercial properties were a private issue that was exacerbated by encroachment of the floodplain area with development,” the report states. “It was only through protestation and demands from Tlaquepaque ownership and their attorneys that the city acquiesced and agreed to an equitable financial partnership with Tlaquepaque and Los Abrigados to pay for the construction of the Soldier Wash drainage improvements. The city also agreed to pay for the associated design costs and handle the construction administration duties.”

It goes on to state that it is staff’s understanding that the outcome of those meetings provided for a willingness for the three parties to work together to equitably share the costs of the drainage improvements. However, no Memorandum of Understanding or other documentation was ever created “to memorialize the partnership.”

Wendy Lippman, Tlaquepaque’s general manager and resident partner, said that when it came to the amount they would be willing to pay, no figure was concrete and no agreement on her part was made. She said she did email the city inquiring as to what their portion of Phase 4 may be before she met with her three other business partners. At that time, she said she was told $300,000.

“If anyone can infer that the email request of what the budget is was an agreement, I’m sorry but that’s not how it was interpreted,” she said to council. “I was just trying to get facts and the lay of the land.”

She went on to say, “We signed up to do interim improvements [earlier phases of the projects], we didn’t sign up to do what we feel is the city of Sedona’s responsibilities. It’s the city of Sedona that’s set an ordinance for a 25-year flood flow.

Lippman said that while Tlaquepaque is willing to pay its fair share, when she was given an estimate of $300,000 there were no plans drawn up for the project at that time.

“At this point we had no plans — these are conversations happening,” she said. “This is not like saying I 100 percent am behind this or I’m 100 percent giving you a check for $300,000. You guys have to give me a break here. By asking how much a phase is going to cost, that shouldn’t be considered 100 percent approval without even seeing a plan?”

City Manager Justin Clifton said it comes down to how much of the cost is that of the city and how much is that of the businesses owners.

“The city has maintained through those discussions [with Tlaquepaque and Los Abrigados] the objective of achieving a cost share of $250,000,” he said. “It was consistent during those conversations also that that number needed to be discussed. The city’s position is, we’re looking for $250,000.

“Wendy’s been consistent throughout those meetings that the $250,000 was not promised or agreed to. But that was our impression is that that was the arrangement when we pitched it to council when we presented budgetary requests. So we’ve aimed for that the whole time.”

Clifton said that at this point, the city does not feel it’s appropriate to reduce that $250,000 amount.

“This is not city money, it’s taxpayer money,” he said. “So what we’re really talking about is how much of this is the responsibility of the collective taxpayers and how much is the responsibility of the landowners. I think the deal and framework, whether it was one we agreed to or not, is a fair deal for the private owners involved considering they bear the impact of the flooding events.”