The Sedona City Council voted unanimously on Tuesday, June 11, to approve a proposed issue of up to $18 million in excise revenue bonds as part of the financing arrangements for the Forest Road Extension and Uptown parking garage.

City Manager Anette Spickard explained to the council that the resolution was proposed as an emergency measure both “to take advantage of the bond market to the city’s benefit” and to prevent a referendum on the bond issue that could delay the start of work on the garage.

Bonds and More Bonds

City financial advisor Jack Leeper, of Stifel Public Finance, presented council with the proposed financing plan for the Uptown garage. Under the arrangement tentatively approved by council on May 14, when the garage contract was authorized, the $18.6 million remaining balance of the $25 million raised in 2022 by a bond issue to fund Sedona in Motion projects, potentially including the garage, will be reallocated from the Forest Road Extension to the garage project. The proceeds of the 2024 bonds, which may be up to $18 million but are currently estimated to be $16.345 million, will be allocated to completion of both Forest Road and the garage.

Spickard stated that allocating the bond proceeds in this manner would result in a savings of over $5 million to the general fund.

Emergency

The resolution approving the bond issue was proposed as an emergency measure, meaning that it would take effect immediately instead of in 30 days and would be exempt from repeal by a referendum. Such an ordinance must be approved by at least 75% of council, or six of the seven members.

“There’s been at least 24 … bond issuances and refundings,” City Attorney Kurt Christianson said about the emergency clause in reply to a question from Councilwoman Jessica Williamson. “Of the 24, 23 were approved with an emergency declaration. The one exception was a 1992 refunding.”

“They are commonly used by cities, towns, counties across the state,” bond counsel Paul Gales said.

Gales said that using the emergency clause in the resolution “allows the city to access the market in a timely manner,” while

Leeper said that it “allows you to take advantage of market conditions” and “lock in those rates,” resulting in taxpayer savings.

Leeper said that the Federal Reserve will likely not cut interest rates in the near future. “There are some whispers of rates actually being increased,” he said.

“Is there actually any placement risk here?” Councilman Pete Furman asked. “Verde Valley bonds are pretty safe.”

Leaper said it was uncommon but could happen.

“Everything I see suggests we’re in a relatively stable interest rate environment,” Councilman Brian Fultz said. “Is there really any interest rate risk to the city over a two-week delay?”

The bond pricing is currently scheduled for between July 2 and 8, while Leeper said the soonest the bonds could be priced without the emergency clause would be July 16.

“It’s unlikely,” Gales said. “But, as we’ve seen in the world the past couple of years, anything’s possible.”

“We do have sufficient liquid cash in order to cover that,” interim Finance Director Jean McGann said, regarding the city’ ability to continue work on Forest Road if the bond issue was deferred for a two-week period.

“We were already planning to carry the project for a couple of weeks,” Spickard added.

No Referendum

“If the emergency clause is not used, and if we have folks who, I have heard, pulled or are about to pull packets to create a referendum on this decision, that introduces massive uncertainty into the completion of this project because we don’t know if the voters will vote it down,” Spickard said in response to a question from Vice Mayor Holli Ploog about potential delays. “It could be more than a year delay … You’ve recently been faced with a similar situation, and you had to choose, would you implement a project in the face of a referendum looming, and you chose not to. I would bring the same question to you if a referendum were filed on this, asking you, ‘Do you want the city to cancel $12 million worth of other projects to see this one through to completion with no guarantee that you’re going to get the bond?’ … You won’t get away from this decision by leaving out the emergency clause. We will be back to you to find out how we’re going to get to finish Forest Road with other money because there’s no guarantee the bond will come … The emergency clause is providing certainty for the financing of the project.”

“If that’s your intention, to have people vote on major projects, probably do that before you start a project instead of in the middle of it,” Spickard added.

If the bond issue and the garage were turned down, Deputy City Manager Andy Dickey said, “what contractor in their right mind would bid our contracts?”

Public Comment

Three residents spoke on the proposed bond issue. Allison Nichols said she was concerned about the emergency clause, while Mike Wise urged the council to approve the bonds and move forward with the project.

“Perhaps it’s because I’ve only been here for [two and a half years] that I’m still capable of being surprised by things that the city does,” Bill Noonan said. “Sedona city ordinances are very clear that emergencies and emergency ordinances that take effect immediately are limited to those situations that are required for the immediate preservation of the peace, health or safety. The only justification the city has given for declaring this an emergency is the financial convenience of the city … I’ve listened to some of the justifications for doing this. One of them is that the city has ignored the law many times in the past and should continue to do so in the present. Although that’s a creative defense, I don’t think that it’s very convincing.”

Council Discussion

“This whole emergency clause thing is confounding to me,” Fultz said. “Why isn’t there a more discreet ARS statute that speaks to giving this authority to basically fast-track without using language that, again, has been pointed out as questionable?”

“The emergency clause means that, when applied, whatever is happening is exempt from referendum,” Councilwoman Melissa Dunn said. “That is the crux of the emergency clause. That is what people in our community are most concerned about. If we issue this with the emergency clause, they cannot try to do a referendum to stop the bond.”

“I’m not against referendums, that’s fine,” Dunn said. “However, there is a health, safety and welfare risk to the community … I think that these [projects] are in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of the community.”

“Hear, hear. I’m in support of the resolution as it’s currently written,” Williamson said.

“We would like you to be happy,” Williamson added, addressing the audience. “But I think we realize that 1., we’re not going to make you happy on this issue, and 2., the garage is in the best interests of the city.”

“I prefer that the emergency clause be removed from this action,” Furman said. “Governments move slow for good and frustrating reasons … It also subverts the public process. We need to be very conscious of that. I don’t think that a two-week delay in interest rate risk has made the case for me that we should revert to an emergency clause … there’s a difference between can and should.”

“I’m supposed to act fiscally responsible up here on behalf of our community,” Kinsella said, noting that she was “not happy about the emergency language in there” but it would save $5 million. “That’s fiscally responsible.”

“How are we going to govern these large decisions going forward?” Kinsella asked. “Do they remain with council? … Or do we allow things to be delayed in a way that harms our city financially?”

Mayor Scott Jablow said he would support the resolution as written.

“Just because you’ve always done something is not a good reason to continue to do this,” Furman said, pointing out that he checked with Flagstaff and Cottonwood city staff and was told that neither municipality uses emergency clauses to issue its bonds.

The council then passed the resolution unanimously.