Minutes Archive

Return to previous page.

Minutes of February, 1997 Meeting





February 27, 1997

Village of Oak Creek Community Center


1.     Call to order: 9:05 am by President Craig Stromme, who led Pledge of Allegiance to Flag. Craig welcomed members and visitors and stated the purpose of the BPRCC


2.     Role Call. Secretary Bob Carlile announced that a quorum was present. The following Representatives and Alternates signed the attendance record: Bob Aberg, Bob Brandin, Dick Byrnes, Bob Carlile, Lynne Crowe, Craig Dibble, Carolyn Fisher, Dorothy Hores, Joanne Johnson, Dottie Lucas, Lloyd Marlowe, Joan McClelland, Phyllis Medley, Kathleen Moore, Richard Painter, Craig Stromme, Ron Tanner, Bob Wier, John Humphery, Lloyd Barnett. An audience of about 40 visitors was in attendance.


3.     Minutes. Secretary Bob Carlile moved to accept the Minutes of Jan. 16, 1996 Meeting. Seconded/Approved. He announced that BPRCC has a Post Office box. Mail should henceforth be sent to Big Park Regional Coordinating Council, P0 Box 20248, Sedona, AZ  86341. Bulky items can still be left at our box in the VOCA Community Center.


4.     Treasurer’s Report. Treasurer Dorothy Hores passed out a Monthly Statement showing that 7 members have to date paid their dues, for a total of $695, and called for delinquent members to become current. She stated that a bank account has been opened.


5.     President Craig Stromme asked for brief Committee reports:

Pebble Gate: Chair Joan McClelland said there had been no meeting.

Budget: Chair Dorothy Hores passed out a Budget Committee Report showing for 1997 fiscal year total revenue and expenditures expected is $1800. The issue of whether we want tax exempt status which will cost $500 will be discussed at the March meeting.

Big Park Community Plan (BPCP):  Temporary Chair Joan McClelland reported that there are 17 persons currently on the Committee. She has obtained copies of the existing Plan. They will meet with Howard Hawk, Planning and Zoning Commissioner for VOC area. Supervisor Chip Davis stated that the County is prepared to move ahead with a revision of the Big Park Community Plan. The boundary of the Big Park Community Plan as well as nearby planning areas are shown on the attached map.

Highway 179:Temporary Chair John Humphery deferred discussion until March Meeting.



Park and Recreation: Bob Aberg/Bob Wier are Co-Chair. Ken Anderson, USFS, attended, and was invited to attend BPRCC regular March meeting. A mission statement was developed. BPRCC has been invited to attend a USFS meeting on March 20 on the location of new Visitor Center.

Planning and Zoning Liaison: Chair Joanne Johnson gave a history of the application for rezoning of Cainino del Pueblo proposed development to the P&Z and Supervisors. She stated that on Feb. 26, the Committee had been at the Natural Resources Committee of the Arizona Senate and were concerned about certain permissive wording in HB 2079; this Bill, if passed, would allow the Supervisors to vote to transfer control on operations of the Big Park Wastewater Treatment Plant (BPWTP) to the Big Park Improvement District (BPID). This issue will be discussed in detail below.

6.     President Stromme announced that we would hear presentations from County administrators on three issues:

1.    A rate increase for those hooked up to BPWTP;

2.    HB 2079 and its implications; and

3.    Request for an amendment to the existing BPCP by developer

of Camino del Pueblo.

President Stromme stated that the purpose of this information is to allow us to develop a consensus on these issues which will be forwarded to Supervisor Chip Davis and the other Supervisors. We will not take a vote on these issues at this meeting. Each member is requested to discuss these issues with its respective homeowners association, and then return for a special meeting of BPRCC (on March 13) at which time a consensus will be developed.

Supervisor Chip Davis was introduced and made some preliminary statements. 1) He felt that it was important for him to get a consensus on important issues that affected the community and appreciated the role that BPRCC would play in obtaining that consensus. 2) All discussions with him must be held in public. 3) He will make available to BPRCC appropriate County personnel to answer our questions and clarify issues. 4) he will tell us of issues of significance to BPRCC well in advance of Supervisor’s vote so that we can provide our input; for example, improvements are planned for Verde Valley School Rd and Bell Rock Blvd. He would like our input on the design of these improvements. 5) He wants input from the entire community on issues, and requested that we to tell him whether BPRCC could provide sufficient input for doing this. As a complementary source of information, he suggested evening meetings so that people in VOC who work can attend. He asked for a response from BPRCC on this matter.

Jim Holst, County Administrator, discussed the three issue above:

1. Rate increase. The existing BPWTP with 500,000 gpd capacity. It is debt free (this was later corrected to show that there are long term bond encumbrances which will be paid off in 2002). It currently has 600 customers who pay $13.50/mo. and who use a capacity of 255,868 gpd. There is in effect a $2100 hook up fee per customer designated for capital improvements. Customers who have paid the hook-up fee but are as yet not connected account for a 93,000 gpd capacity. Thus, the entire committed capacity of BPWTP at the present time is about 348,000 gpd. The capital improvements account has paid for the new plant with about $200,000 remaining, although operations costs which can’t be met by the current monthly rate are dipping into this account. By a permit issued by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), effluent is currently being allowed to flow into Dry Beaver Creek. Plans are to pump this effluent across Hwy. 179 and uphill to the VOCA golf course. Most of the infrastructure for doing this is installed eight years ago through an Agreement between VOCA and BPID. VOCA has made a large investment in this system including the sprinkler system in place in the golf course. According to the Agreement, VOCA will get the effluent free for a 10 year period following the when the Agreement took effect, approximately 8 years ago. A large number of residents in BPID have septic systems, and since BPID is not a sanitary district, BPID has no authority to require these residents to connect to BPWTP. All operating costs and capital improvement costs are paid for by those in BPID connected to BPWTP. The plant must abide by current and future ADEQ requirements since grandfathering is not allowed for environmental regulations.

The $13.50/mo can no longer meet operations costs and so a rate increase to $18.00/mo is proposed and will be decided by a vote of the Supervisors. Currently, losses are covered by the capital account which is not intended to pay operations costs. It is expected that new customers will stabilize the monthly rate. The details of how the new rate was arrived at is detailed in a memorandum available from Jenifer Bartos, Solid Waste/Special Districts Manager, who was also present and answered the question. There were numerous questions asked of Mr. Holst by members and visitors. His answers have been incorporated into the above discussion.


2.     HB 2079  (Presentation made by Mr. Randy Schurr, County Attorney). This bill, which has passed the House, and was in the Natural Resources Committee of the Senate on Feb. 26, if passed, would allow the Supervisors by a majority vote to ~ relinquish their role as the Board of Directors for the BPWTP and to transfer control to the BPID. Carlton Camp, former Supervisor of Dist. 3, initiated this concept, since he felt that BPID should be free to make its own decisions. Randy Schurr wrote HB 2079 which would implement the concept. The bill has strong statewide support as well as the support of the Governor. Therefore its passage is seen as almost certain. It is noted that our P&Z Liaison Committee has proposed tightening its language to require a specific number of public hearings, an official audit, and a financial statement. In the event of passage, the Supervisors expect a long period of transfer of authority to BPID. The local directors would be elected and could then set all policies pertaining to BPWTP.


3. Request for Amendment to BPCP by Developer of Camino del Pueblo. Jim Holst stated that in discussions with ADEQ, they will requires a 500 ft. setback between the plant facilities and any adjacent housing units for a complete build-out of a treatment plant with lM (1,000,000) gpd. Relationship between BPID and USFS has been excellent. USFS has signed off on a waiver of set-back for three sides of the plant. The immediate issue is on the north side of the plant where land is owned by the developer of Camino del Pueblo. Currently, BPWTP owns a 340 ft setback on the north, so an additional 160 ft. is needed. It is the intention of the County through BPID to obtain the 160 ft.

The discussion was continued by Mr. Mike Rozycki, Director of Planning and Zoning. He stated that the Developer of Camino del Pueblo owns 34.9 acres immediately north of BPWTP with access from Wild Horse Mesa Dr. The Developer proposed to P&Z in May an amendment to the BPCP allowing mix-use zoning including townhouses and mini-storage units. P&Z asked the Developer to hold meetings with local residents. A formal proposal for amendment was proposed to P&Z in November, and P&Z denied the amendment. The Supervisors referred the request back to P&Z. A new proposal for amendment was submitted to P&Z which showed the mini-storage units on the 160 ft setback. ADEQ would count this as part of needed plant setback and would give BPWTP the desired 500 ft setback. The proposal was resubmitted to P&Z who again denied. On Feb. 17, the Supervisors delayed a vote until March 17 seeking input from BPRCC. The options for us appear to be three:

1. Recommend denial and build a “buffer structure” which shields adjacent housing units from odor, noise of plant; this would reduce ADEQ requirements for a setback;

2. Recommend denial and BPID would buy 160 ft setback from developer, which could involve condemnation and/or litigation;

3. Recommend approval and accept developer’s proposal for amending the BPCP.

Note that options 1 and 2 would involve considerable expense and time delay to BPID. The specifics of the proposal of option 3 was presented by a representative of the developer, Mr. Bill Blakley. His proposal is to build mini-storage units in the 160 ft setback (these would be made to look attractive) then, dedicate a 6 acre parcel to a park for the community between the mini-storage units and the homes which would fulfill his open space requirements by P&Z. Finally, reduce density to about 49 units. The developer would agree to accept any noise or odor that reaches the housing units under this proposal.

VOCA Alternate, Joanne Johnson, pointed out that the park was too remotely located from VOC to be accessible to children and serve as a park for the community. She also felt that noise and odor would have to be eventually controlled so that a buffer structure should be planned now. She recommended denial.


This concluded the lengthy discussion on the three main issues.


Dick Bryne moved that BPRCC have a special meeting on March 13,

1997 at 9:00 AM at VOCA Community Center to develop a consensus

on the three issues. Seconded/Passed. President Stromme charged

each Representative and Alternate with bringing to that meeting

a consensus from their homeowner’s association.


7. Adjourned 11:20 AM.


Respectfully submitted,


Bob Carlile, Secretary,

Big Park Regional Coordinating Council











Proposed Budget Policy


The budget shall be constructed to support and implement the nature and business of the Big Park Regional Coordinating Council as stipulated in the Articles of Incorporation, Article V.

Expenditures shall be limited to operating expenses necessary to carry out said business.


Proposed budget procedures:


Checking account: Signatures of the 4 officers are required to open an account

Checks:  Any 2 of the 4 signatures are required on all checks.

Petty cash: Maintained by the Treasurer Not to exceed $50. Signature and receipt required.

Treasurer:  May deposit and write checks

Audit:  Conducted annually in accordance with Article VII, Section 4 of the Articles of Incorporation.


Timetable problem:


Our timetable in starting the organization and receiving dues is out of synch with the timetable in our by-laws for a fiscal year beginning July 1. The Budget Committee recommends that:


1. rather than asking member associations to pay another $50 in June, we operate the first year on a calendar year (Jan 1 to Dec. 31)  then notify member associations for their budgeting purposes, that $50 will be due on Jan.1, 1998 and $100 will be due on July 1, 1998 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999.


2. we amend the bylaws to change the fiscal year to coincide with the calendar year.


Dorothy Hores, Treasurer

Dottie Lucas

Phyllis Medley

Return to previous page.