Pete Furman

Council to move ahead with 15 mph OHV speed limit – Sedona Red Rock News

With little public interaction, the Sedona City Council took the first step on Tuesday, Sept. 10, toward making Sedona the first city in Arizona to have a separate and lower speed limit for off-highway vehicles by holding a public hearing on a proposed ordinance limiting OHVs to 15 mph on all city-owned streets. Council agendized future discussion of such an ordinance in July after receiving a petition signed by 43 residents of Morgan Road requesting such a speed limit reduction on their street.

The proposed language of the ordinance would amend Chapter 10.15.040 of Sedona City Code by adding section B: “Pursuant to the provisions of [Arizona Revised Statutes §] 28-627 and §28-703, the established speed on all roads and streets for all-terrain vehicles and off-highway vehicles shall be 15 miles per hour where adopted by City Council by resolution and where posted by appropriate signs. This section shall not apply to the regulation of any speed of all-terrain vehicles or off-highway vehicles upon any state or federal highway.”

Except for a portion of State Route 89A in Uptown, State Routes 89A and 179 are owned by the Arizona Department of Transportation.

The ordinance would also codify a substantial amount of language describing the alleged safety deficiencies of OHVs, which City Attorney Kurt Christianson said was intended to “clearly establish” that OHVs are unsafe and that “noise creates a health issue.”

According to fatality and injury studies by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, OHVs are approximately six times less dangerous than cars in the United States as a whole and 50 times less dangerous in Arizona.

“The 15-mph speed limit would not apply unless adopted by resolution and then posted by signage,” Christianson told the council in response to questions from Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella. “It’s a blanket one to get it on the books by ordinance … and then any time council wants to designate a road or not designate a road, they can just pass it by a resolution. It’s a quicker process … The ordinance amends the law to allow a lower speed limit; council can then, just by resolution, designate OHV speed limit routes … It does not require them to actually adopt a 15 mph speed limit.”

“Why would we not just be looking at reducing the speed limit on that road for all vehicles?” Kinsella asked.

Christianson explained that state statute requires a traffic investigation be done to support any alteration to speed limits, and that by including the language relating to the purported safety risks posed by OHVs in the ordinance itself, the documents cited in the ordinance could be used “to justify the lower speed limit,” while changing the speed limit for all vehicles would require a separate investigation.

Public Works Director Kurt Harris estimated that it would take approximately one month to conduct such a study.

“I don’t believe there’s any rollover accidents on Morgan Road,” Christianson added.

Councilman Pete Furman asked whether the city’s noise ordinance could be used as an excuse to ticket OHVs for engine noise, which Christianson responded would be preempted by state statute.

Furman then suggested non-uniformed city personnel be used to wave vehicles down as “part of a new education campaign to stop everybody.”

“Not what I would recommend,” Christianson said. “The only one with legal authority to stop a car would be a police officer.”

“We stop people with our folks at Back o’ Beyond,” Furman said.

Harris told council during its December priority retreat that the Back o’ Beyond traffic assistants have no authority to prevent drivers from using the public road.

“I could not find another city in Arizona that has adopted an OHV speed limit,” Christianson said in reply to another question from Furman.

“I’m looking forward to hearing from [Sedona Police Chief Stephanie Foley] … as to how any of this would be enforced,” outgoing Councilwoman Jessica Williamson said.

“My only concern would be meeting your expectations of how heavy that enforcement is,” Foley said, and added that if there was no conflict with city needs, she would let officers sign up for overtime on Morgan Road. She also suggested using a message board to “gain compliance.”

“Having two different speed limits … might encourage trying to pass a vehicle that’s going slower,” Kinsella said. “Am I going to get impatient and try to pass in an inappropriate place?”

“We think it will improve safety and certainly noise,” said Morgan Road resident Carl Jackson, while acknowledging that safety concerns over OHVs on Morgan Road are “subjective.” “For sure, they’re louder than any other vehicle type.”

He argued that a 15 mph speed limit on OHVs would reduce the noise they produce by 3 to 6 decibels. “We’re bringing it down closer to other vehicles. That’s the objective.”

Two previous city studies on OHV noise and an additional study by the Greater Sedona Recreation Collaborative, of which Jackson is a member, all concluded that routine OHV noise is below the level at which hearing damage can occur.

With regard to concerns that the lower speed limit would cause traffic backups or dangerous passing, Jackson said twice that he considered it a “pretty low probability,” as the road sees “about zero to three OHVs per hour … about 10% to 20% of our motorized recreation volume … Most of our volume is Jeeps.”

“We would ask them to also consider increased enforcement,” Jackson said. “If there is enforcement on the road for loud music … that’s going to capture and solve a loud noise coming out of Jeeps that we wouldn’t otherwise have solved with a lower speed limit.”

“There are some residents in our neighborhood who want much stronger solutions, and feel that if we just do this, it’s going to dilute and weaken our argument to ask for other things,” Jackson said. “There is that feeling that 25 [mph] is the natural speed … they were fine if it was just OHVs.”

Nena Barlow, owner of Barlow Adventures, spoke in support of the ordinance as “a necessary step to reduce noise on this road.” “The speed limit is a great step because … if the Forest Service finds there is a ban on this street that’s limiting access by the public, it’s a big red flag for them, and then they would very likely look at developing that trailhead for trailer parking,” Barlow said. “That’s not something that we would like to see.”

Councilman Brian Fultz read a letter from Outback ATV owner Dan Candler stating that he would not oppose the speed limit change and suggesting a consistent speed limit for all vehicles, while Vice Mayor Holli Ploog read a letter from Rob Adams, a Morgan area road resident and former mayor, asking the city to require OHV trailering in residential neighborhoods “if there is sufficient disruption to the neighborhood,” as well as requesting the installation of a gate at the Broken Arrow trailhead.

Council members were supportive of the proposed ordinance.

“I have concerns about the effectiveness of enforcement, but it’s something we can do,” Williamson said. “Not everybody obeys anything, but some people will.”

“I have concerns that it’s going to create an unintended consequence of passing vehicles, of impatient vehicles, of riding close on somebody else’s bumper … road rage,” Kinsella said. “This is something that we’re looking at applying potentially to other roads in the city as well.”

“Reducing the speed limit seems to me … as really being used to address noise issues,” Kinsella added.

“I’ve been on plenty of highways that semis have to drive at a slower speed,” Fultz said, adding that speed limits “are on the honor system anyway. There’s only so much Sedona police to go around.”

“This is about people with really loud radios and boom boxes blaring,” Councilwoman Melissa Dunn said, observing that the city’s previous agreement with the city’s OHV rental companies does not affect the behavior of private OHV owners.

Vice Mayor Holli Ploog suggested that if the speed limit on Morgan Road were reduced, it could drive OHV riders to go elsewhere.

“This is a good test for the rest of the city,” Mayor Scott Jablow said.

Christianson informed council that the ordinance will be discussed again “most likely [at] the first meeting in October.”

Schnebly roundabout underpass cost rises another $201K – Sedona Red Rock News

During its Aug. 13 meeting, the Sedona City Council gave an additional $201,938 of public money to J. Banicki Construction, the firm hired to build a pedestrian underpass under the Schnebly Hill Road roundabout, to complete lighting and handrail work on the sidewalk.

Agendized as a consent item, the change order was pulled for a discussion by Councilman Pete Furman.

At the time the City Council approved the contract in April 2023, construction was planned to be completed in February 2024. Associate city engineer Bob Welch did not specify how much of its 25% profit on the contract Banicki would be expected to return to compensate the city and the public for the six-month delay, instead stating that damages will only be assessed after several more weeks elapse.

“We have a hard-fast date of Sept. 6 that we’re holding the contractor to,” Welch said. “There are liquidated damages associated with not making that date.”

Sedona Director of Public Works Kurt Harris later explained that the project had already been subject to eight previous change orders, three of which had extended the project’s soft completion date by a total of 156 calendar days. Including an additional 59 days authorized by the current change order, total delay through Sept. 6 will be 215 days.

All three time extensions were related to obtaining an Arizona Department of Environmental Quality permit for portions of the work due to Oak Creek being classified as a Unique and Outstanding Water of Arizona, regulated by ADEQ within Arizona Department of Transportation’s right of way.

“There are no completion date deadlines or associated penalties, but an agreed schedule for tracking purposes,” Harris said.

Harris added, “Change orders work both ways to protect the owner and the contractor when problems or discoveries literally arise during construction.”

“The first change order on this project has to do with the visionary lighting package,” Welch said. “[That] has to do with LED lighting that is compliant with our current lighting standard that wasn’t part of the specifications originally.

“Component two has to do with underground electric service conduit … The initial thoughts on where this was and where we were coming from differed from ultimately what APS was requiring.

“Component number three has to do with the concrete wall and barrier color … We added a component color.”

“The next component for additional retaining curb and handrail … we fell slightly short with that under the plans,” Welch said. “Component six had to do with a full-depth saw cut and seal. Originally we were utilizing an expansion joint-type material … to avoid premature crackage in that pathway, we did an isolation saw cut to separate those two systems.”

“These changes were necessary according to staff,” Deputy City Manager Andy Dickey said. “These changes were not errors attributed to our design consultant.”

“You learn as you do things,” Furman said.

Council approved the additional expenditure of public funds unanimously.

“The completion date is scheduled for Sept. 6,” Harris stated in an email on Tuesday, Aug. 20

Council chooses Phoenix firm for new Cultural Park master plan – Sedona Red Rock News

On July 9, the Sedona City Council unanimously voted to awarded a $254,242 contract to Dig Studio of Phoenix to create a new master plan for the Sedona Cultural Park. A total of five firms replied to the city’s request for proposals, none of which were based in Sedona.

“We will propose a series of concepts, including housing and mixed-use development types and adaptive reuse possibilities, streetscape, mobility, connectivity and public realm improvements, and trail and national forest access points design,” Dig Studio’s scope of work for the contract stated.

The contract will run through Aug. 5, 2025. The firm will be responsible for conducting the city’s proposed public outreach program regarding the park’s future development and producing three alternative concept plans “that will be vetted through the public and then brought to P&Z and finally to council,” Community Development Director Steve Mertes said.

“Is this going to be one big project? Is it going to be phased? Is it going to be parceled out in sort of multiple littler projects?” Councilman Pete Furman asked.

Mertes explained that the master planning process would not be part of the development process, but was instead intended to make development easier through “understanding what uses the public is looking for.”

“Is it going to be one RFP to build all the candy?” Furman asked.

“We can’t tell that at this point,” Mertes said.

“There has been some interest expressed around public facilities,” Councilman Brian Fultz said. “Do you anticipate we would get ballpark figures on what it would cost to do certain grandiose things with this land?”

“Will we get absolute numbers? Probably not. Will we get ballpark numbers? Yeah, I would assume so,” Mertes said.

Fultz asked if questions related to the proposed uses for the Cultural Park would be included on the city’s next budget survey in the spring of 2025. “Timing-wise, that’s not a bad time,” Fultz suggested.

“I think it’s a very good idea,” Mertes answered.

The city’s 2022 budget survey included a question on residents’ preferred future uses for the Cultural Park. Of the 11 options offered to respondents, four were various housing uses. Reopening the Georgia Frontiere Performing Arts Pavilion as a performance space was excluded from the city’s survey.

At the time, respondents ranked preserving the park as open space as their highest priority; open space preservation scored almost twice as high as any proposed housing use. Of the 185 written comments submitted in response to the “other” option on the questionnaire, 62, or 33%, called for the restoration of the park as a performing arts and music venue.

“Is there any concern you have that the public participation process isn’t robust enough, knowing how much the public likes to participate?” Fultz continued. “I expect there will be epic level of interest in engagement.”

“We’re having three [meetings] in a one-year process,” Mertes said. “This does and will give more than enough possibility for the public to provide their input.”

The scope of work for the contract calls for Dig Studio to have 26 biweekly design meetings with city staff, plus a kickoff meeting; eight stakeholder meetings with stakeholders defined primarily as city council members, city staff and adjacent property owners; two additional meetings with the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission; two public meetings to take public comment; and one public meeting to inform the public of their conclusions.

Then-Vice Mayor Scott Jablow stated at the time of the park’s purchase for more than $23 million that “the public outreach that’s going to be done is going to be extensive,” while thenCouncilwoman Holli Ploog stated that “there is no way this land will be developed without intensive public participation.”

When asked on Aug. 7 if she was confident that the limited number of public meetings would meet the definition of extensive and robust, City Manager Anette Spickard said, “I think so. I am positive that we will allow people to provide us input throughout. If they want to send things in during that whole process, there are opportunities always to provide input to us.”

“If we just said there’s only two public meetings but 30 staff meetings, that wouldn’t really characterize it since we’re going to be doing a lot of different types of outreach to try to capture as many people’s thoughts as we can, recognizing that everybody can’t come to an in-person meeting,” Spickard added. “Obviously there’s groups out there that have very specific ideas that they think should happen, and I’m hoping that they provide their input in this process.”

The contract and scope of work make no reference to the existing amphitheater or to potential arts and culture uses for the property long sought by the community. Spickard did not say if consideration of options for reopening the venue would be included in the planning process.

“I’m not going to close the door on anything or promise anything,” Spickard said. “This is supposed to be an open process from start to finish without any preconceived assumptions. It depends on what they gather from the public input … I think we’re open to all suggestions about uses for that property and ways they can complement each other.”

Spickard also said that the proposal to begin constructing apartments on the northeast corner of the property prior to any planning being done will now be “waiting for the master planning.”