SEDONA — The familiar sight of off-highway vehicles traveling through the streets of Sedona could soon be a thing of the past thanks to an ordinance proposed by city council.

The ordinance would require all motor vehicles driving on paved public roadways to comply with certain vehicle safety standards, which the city argues nearly all OHVs do not meet. 

If passed, the ordinance would make it illegal to drive a motor vehicle that is unsafe, does not include proper safety equipment or that is not approved by the manufacturer to be operated on paved or public roads within the city of Sedona.

Notably, as it is written now, there is currently an exemption for city employees under the ordinance, intended to allow the fire department to continue using their fleet of UTVs on calls for service across town.

The backbone of the ordinance relies on the fact that OHV manufacturers themselves explicitly state in their owners manuals that the vehicles are not designed for travel on paved roads of any kind.

Further, the tires that equip these vehicles do not meet Department of Transportation requirements for travel on streets and highways. 

Additional safety concerns were raised by city leaders as OHVs often lack other safety equipment designed to keep drivers of traditional vehicles safe including airbags, anti-lock brakes, crumple zones, stability control, bumpers and turn signals. 

“What is a fact is that there are six manufacturers that all say these vehicles do not belong on paved roads and that’s an indisputable fact,” Councilor Brian Fultz said. 

“Now that I know that, I can’t un-know that,” he said. 

Fultz also made a point to emphasize twice that Polaris, one of the most popular manufacturers of OHVs, does not oppose the basis for this ordinance. Instead, they are just concerned about the continued economic viability of the local industry, a sentiment shared by many of the speakers and a majority of those on council.

Futlz said it was the city council’s responsibility to take preemptive action to protect drivers who may or may not be aware of the inherent dangers of these vehicles. 

“I do believe that when a manufacturer says it’s not safe to do something, there’s a Darwinian principle involved when you do it anyway,” echoed Councilor Melissa Dunn. 

Mayor Scott Jablow said that while he understood the concerns from the community, safety should remain the priority. Moreover, he said just because there hasn’t been a deadly OHV accident in Sedona yet doesn’t mean they should wait until there is one to act.

“All we’re doing is keeping people safe,” Jablow said. “And it could be you, it could your wife, your spouse, your child, you don’t know.”

When presenting the ordinance, the city referred to the U.S. Consumer and Product Safety Commission that reports an average of more than 700 deaths per year involving OHVs. According to the Commission’s most recent annual report, there were 2,178 deaths associated with OHVs from 2017 to 2019, the most recent year with complete data. 

Councilors, residents concerned about unintended consequences

Much of the night’s conversations revolved around limiting the potential unintended consequences if this ordinance were to go into effect. Speakers both in support of and opposed to the ordinance expressed various concerns that could potentially arise as a result of this legislation.

If OHVs are prohibited from paved roadways, they would need to be taken to trailheads on large trailers, which many people pointed out could end up being more disruptive than the already-crowded parking situation that currently exists in many popular areas. 

Additionally, countless speakers connected to the OHV industry expressed worries that the restrictions will have a significant negative impact economically on local rental businesses and their employees.

More on the red rocks:Best Sedona restaurants in 2023 have views and food to savor. Here’s what to order

City leaders shared some of these concerns and reaffirmed their commitment to support the industry through a potential transition. 

“I don’t believe a city council should be in the business of putting businesses out of business,” Fultz said.

Multiple councilors expressed their general support for the ordinance but there needs to be more research into the potential impacts before they can vote. 

“We have two things to do: keep you in business, and I mean that, but keep our residents and the traveling public safe as well,” Jablow said.

Other popular off-road destinations have passed similar restrictions

Sedona is not the first tourism destination that has had to tackle the issue of OHVs on public roadways.

Just this March, trade groups sponsored by OHV manufacturers sent a letter to the Oregon legislature opposing a proposed bill that would have made OHVs and ATVs street legal in the state, stating they are not safe for highway use. 

Nearby in New Mexico, it is illegal to operate an OHV on paved roads or highways except as allowed by local authority or the state transportation commission.

Meanwhile, Montana requires any OHVs to be modified to be street legal before they can drive on public paved roadways, which could include adding a functioning headlamp, stop lamp, brakes, electric horn, rearview mirror, exhaust muffler and spark arrestor. 

These states, councilors pointed out, have still been able to maintain successful off-road industries.

“It’s about changing a business model,” Vice Mayor Holli Ploog said.

Conservative think tank questions ordinance legality

The day before the meeting, Adam Shelton, a lawyer with The Goldwater Institute, wrote a letter to the city questioning the legality of the ordinance under state law. 

Many residents who spoke against the proposal specifically referenced the letter and the potential for legal action if the ordinance is eventually passed.

“We believe that the proposed ordinance is likely preempted by state law, which allows OHVs to be legally driven on streets and highways so long as they are outfitted with equipment prescribed by state statute,” Shelton wrote. 

This does not clearly conflict with the Sedona ordinance as written, which essentially just requires all vehicles on public roadways to be approved for highway use — which appears to also be the intention of the state law.

More on tourism:Sedona takes charge of tourism promotion after split with chamber of commerce

During the meeting, Sedona City Attorney Kurt Christianson presented multiple statutes under Arizona law that he said gives local municipalities the authority to institute restrictions of this kind.

“We are not in the business of passing illegal ordinances,” Ploog added. 

The Goldwater Institute is a conservative and libertarian public policy think tank located in Phoenix whose stated mission is “to defend and strengthen the freedom guaranteed to all Americans in the constitutions of the United States and all fifty states.”

Referencing the claims outlined in the letter, councilor Pete Furman pointed out that the group hasn’t always been the best judge of what’s best for Sedona.

“I might remind all of us that the Goldwater Institute and the Arizona state legislature didn’t think short-term rentals would be harmful in any way either,” Furman said.

Sedona has been trying to solve OHV problems for years

The city has been trying to mitigate the impacts of the OHV industry for nearly a decade with very little tangible solutions to show for it. Residents have long complained about the dust and noise created by these vehicles, which have skyrocketed in popularity over the past decade. 

Many of those who spoke against the ordinance alleged that this was a roundabout way for the city to ban OHVs altogether, which the City Council pushed back on. 

While the city considers this ordinance, there is still a separate and extensive effort underway to develop solutions with various stakeholders around the issue. 

The Greater Sedona Recreation Collaborative started working last year as a collection of community representatives that reflect the wide array of perspectives on this topic. But councilors expressed frustration with the group’s timeline and their focus on solutions that have already been around for years, like reducing OHV volume or modifying mufflers to reduce noise.

“At some point in time we have to say, ‘Do something’ and I’m not seeing anything new being done,” Jablow said.

Group facilitator Jessica Archibald acknowledged that while a multi-year timeline might not be ideal, ensuring the success of this project requires the building of trust between all opposing sides — something that simply cannot happen overnight. 

“This is an incredibly complicated issue,” Archibald said. “There’s a reason this has taken nine years.” 

Reach the reporter at LLatch@gannett.com.

The Republic’s coverage of northern Arizona is funded, in part, with grants from Vitalyst Health Foundation and Report from America. To support regional Arizona news coverage like this, make a tax-deductible donation at supportjournalism.azcentral.com.

Council votes to form tourism board, emulate Thelma & Louise – Sedona Red Rock News

The Sedona City Council voted 6-1 in favor of the creation of a tourism advisory board to rubber-stamp city staff’s policy decisions regarding tourism at its May 10 meeting. Councilman Pete Furman was the lone dissenting voice.

As proposed by staff, the board would consist of 11 members serving staggered four-year terms, representing businesses, environmental groups, residents and other interest areas. The board’s functions could possibly include developing a strategic plan for tourism management.

Heather Hermen of Front Burner Media, whom the city has engaged as a consultant, suggested members of the board could both make recommendations on policy and act as spokespeople to the community.

The proposal to establish a board with fixed membership was written by City Manager Karen Osburn. It contrasts with the council’s expressed desire to explore the tourism strategies of other local municipalities such as Cottonwood, which, Hermen explained, has an advisory board “open to anyone in tourism who contributes to the tax base in Cottonwood to participate.”

Osburn explained afterward that the choice of a limited board with limited public comment periods was intended to provide “continuity in membership from individuals who commit to multi-year appointments and are invested in being there over time” as well as “ensuring broad diversity in representation, perspectives and opinions.”

‘A Strong Hand’

“Their work program, their agendas, the information that they receive and respond to are all provided by staff,” Osburn said of how city commissions and boards operate, the new TAB included. City staff “will to some extent manage the work and manage the group.”

“They’re not going to likely be having budget appropriation authority,” Osburn added, noting that the board’s suggestions may be used to inform staff proposals but will not be binding.

“I really want the city to be very strongly involved in managing the tourism program,” Councilwoman Jessica Williamson said. “I want the city to have a strong hand in this. I don’t want it to sort of become a thing in itself.”

The draft application for advisory board membership that council reviewed during the meeting listed 11 background questions for potential applicants. The questions would solicit applicants’ views on the effects of tourism “both positive and negative,” the major issues facing the city and board, the highest priorities for the city’s tourism management program, the city’s role in supporting businesses and the importance of branding and marketing.

“This is more questions than the other commissions we interview for, so this is really good,” Mayor Scott Jablow said.

Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella suggested adding a question on whether applicants have read the Sustainable Tourism Plan and Community Plan.

City Communications Manager Lauren Browne said the questions “will help make sure the most balanced of perspectives are chosen to participate on this group rather than not picking candidates because they lean one way or another. The whole point is to choose people who represent all sides of tourism including pro, neutral and against.”

Council agreed after discussion that applications will be vetted in executive session to eliminate unqualified candidates, to be followed by interviews with the remaining candidates in public. The final vote on candidates will take place in executive session.

Vacancies will be filled by a vote of the full council, in a departure from the usual procedure for filling vacancies on other boards, which are determined by a vote of the mayor, vice mayor and board president.

Vice Mayor Holli Ploog and Councilman Brian Fultz both referred to the three-person appointment procedure as “rubber stamping.”

‘Way Too Fast’

Furman objected to the entire proposal and expressed a lack of confidence in the advisory board’s ability to focus on developing ideas instead of self-perpetuation.

“Little damage will be done by us not making these decisions yet today,” Furman said. “Everyone knows the metaphor about the horse and the cart. It seems to me that we’re asking the horse to design the cart. You got to know, when you ask a horse to design the cart, they’re going to design a cart that’s meant to be pulled by anything other than horses.”

If council approved the board, Furman warned, it would “start on the path of creating one of the largest bureaucracies that we’ll have in the city … any group that’s been so empowered to meet and establish itself as an official group is just going to want to continue its existence and it will limit the potential of ideas that come in.”

Instead, Furman proposed that the city create a five-member work group that would include a council member, the city manager, a member of the community planning work group, a resident and a business representative. The work group would report to council once a month and would produce a final report on what direction the city’s tourism planning should take after six to 12 months. As part of this process, the group would review information on alternate tourism management strategies, including findings from the United Nations World Tourism Organization, the ASU Center for Sustainable Tourism and Jackson Hole, Wyo.’s sustainable tourism management plan, among other sources.

“We’re moving way too fast to create a structure that will be very difficult to alter if we decide a different structure is needed,” Furman advised. “We need much more time and thought about the structure, the mission.”

Although the remaining members of council agreed with Furman’s suggestion that the advisory board consider a wide variety of resources discussing possible tourism solutions, they rejected delays.

“There is the possibility of damage by not moving forward,” Kinsella said. “It allows things to start developing in a way that goes off and running on its own without the benefit of it being managed from the beginning.”

Ploog and Dunn stated that six months would be too long to wait to decide on the city’s next steps.

“This is our ‘Thelma and Louise’ moment as a community,” Dunn said. “We need to join hands and leap and just hope there’s something good at the bottom … We’ll be wrong, we’ll make mistakes and we’ll learn from our mistakes because we never learn from successes.”

“I don’t think we’re moving too fast at all,” Jablow said. “The businesses have not been promoted by us in years. I’ve heard this past year that many of the businesses are hurting … They know that the chamber and the council are divorced. They need to know that we’re going to move forward. Taking months to get up to speed with a five-person board — that’s not giving them confidence. We need to move forward with this plan.”

In its draft tourism management vision, the council stated that its primary goal for tourism management was reducing visitation to 2019 levels at most.

“We as a body are tasked by the public to be thoughtful and financially wise, and to have us all jump off a cliff together is super bad advice,” Furman said.

The council then voted 6-1 to make the jump

Arabella Spa to move forward after 4-3 approval – Sedona Red Rock News

After a lengthy appeal process, the Sedona City Council voted 4-3 to approve a development review for Arabella Spa at its April 25 meeting.

The owners of the Arabella Hotel submitted a conceptual application to construct a spa facility on vacant commercial property adjoining the hotel in June 2021, submitted a development review application in May 2022 and amended the application in September and October 2022. The Planning and Zoning Commission denied the application by a 3-3 vote on Nov. 15, and a reconsideration by city council on Jan. 25 also failed 3-3. Tie votes are denials.

Councilwoman Melissa Dunn, who was absent on Jan. 25, had requested a further reconsideration of the application.

Attorney Benjamin Tate, of Withey Morris, appearing for the applicants, responded to previous concerns about sustainability, pointing out that the spa will add five to six EV charging stations and is committing to eliminate single-use plastic. Tate stated that 72% of existing trees on the lot will be retained or transplanted, that the pool filtration systems will reduce energy consumption by 50% and that the pool covers will reduce evaporation by 95%.

“Most of this site will remain undeveloped,” Tate said. The proposed area of development will occupy only 29% of the property.

In response to a question from Councilman Brian Fultz, Tate explained that the spa will achieve a reduction in water use of between 42% and 71% relative to the Nirvana mixed-use development approved for the site in 2008.

Andrew Baird, of Kimley-Horn consultants, discussed revised traffic projections for the spa facility. By using “more site-specific data” rather than general estimates, the project’s latest traffic study concluded that the spa would likely generate 546 average daily trips, not 1,121 as determined by the applicants’ previous study, which was conducted in August 2022.

Baird also noted that the Arizona Department of Transportation concurred with Kimley-Horn’s findings.

“They do not see this as a significant amount of traffic that will impact the intersection [at State Route 179 and Sombart Lane],” he told council.

‘Meets and Exceeds’

Fultz said that Arizona is a strong property rights state.

“I’m not thrilled about anything that might cause additional traffic on 179, but I don’t think that’s a basis for making a decision on this project,” Fultz said. “This project meets the requirements and has the right to be approved.” He also expressed confidence in the Kimley-Horn traffic analysis given how often the city retains that firm.

“You’re on the track toward what we would like to see,” Dunn commented, noting that her concerns had been addressed. “I think it fits into our community character.”

Councilwoman Jessica Williamson stated that people should be able to expect that they have the right to build on their property. “This project meets and exceeds the city’s requirements, and yet we’re saying that even though it meets and exceeds the city’s requirements, we’re not going to do it anyway,” Williamson said. “I don’t think that’s fair. I don’t think that’s right.”

“We can’t dictate who builds and who doesn’t build,” Mayor Scott Jablow said, adding that approvals have to be decided “on the merits of the project.”

“I did support this project and I still do support this project,” Jablow said.

The applicants also provided letters of support from the Hampton Inn, the Sedona Chamber of Commerce, the Arizona Lodging and Tourism Association and the Sedona International Film Festival.

‘Airy-Fairy’

Vice Mayor Holli Ploog told the council she disapproved of the fact that their rules of procedure allow reconsideration at all before disagreeing with ADOT’s analysis and referring to the revised traffic statistics as “airy-fairy.”

“It doesn’t feel legitimate,” Ploog said.

“New information has not been submitted here even though it’s been alluded to,” Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella said. “I have nothing that addresses the concerns that I stated at the Jan. 25 meeting, which included the traffic analysis is not there.” She also wanted to review the applicant’s correspondence with ADOT.

“I don’t know why we would think it’s a good idea,” Councilman Pete Furman said, arguing that the application did not meet the city’s Land Development Code requirements because of the absence of a proper traffic analysis.

“We are in the height of a historic drought, and to consider a spa at this time, I think, is unconscionable and unacceptable,” neighbor Suzanne Gosar told the council. “It’s fine for the city of Sedona to choose open space. We have very little of it anymore.”

The National Integrated Drought Information System released data on Dec. 29 indicating that Sedona and Yavapai County were no longer experiencing drought conditions.

The city of Sedona occupies approximately 11,700 acres of land, half of which is national forest and open space.

“What they’re proposing sounds beautiful, but … it’s like lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig. It’s something we do not want in our neighborhood,” Gosar concluded, asking the council to deny the application.

Neighbor Dennis Lewis complained that having to show up to protest the application multiple times “causes me stress and anxiety.” He told the council that he had a “mild fear of retaliation if this doesn’t pass” and that the development would benefit only the project’s owners, not the community, as well as claiming it would attract day trippers.

Williamson’s motion to approve the development review, allowing the project to move forward, passed by a vote of 4-3, with Jablow, Dunn, Fultz and Williamson in favor, and Ploog, Furman and Kinsella against.

https://skift.com/2023/04/20/why-sedonas-tourism-bureau-fired-its-city-over-destination-marketing/

Why Sedona’s Tourism Bureau Fired Its City Over Destination Marketing

Dawit Habtemariam, Skift

April 20th, 2023 at 10:45 AM EDT

Skift Take

All eyes will be on Sedona, Arizona. If it can fund itself and promote tourism without the city’s dollars, other destinations could potentially follow its example.

Dawit Habtemariam

The Sedona Chamber of Commerce & Tourism Bureau recently ended its tourism partnership with the City of Sedona because the local government wouldn’t allow it to restart destination marketing. The move came in the wake of a November election that saw a mayor and council member voted out and that was seen as a referendum on resident attitudes toward tourism.

“It got to the point where somebody had to make a bold decision,” said city councilman Peter Furman. “The chamber pulled the trigger first.”

The non-renewal of the contract for the next fiscal year represents a broader tale of many places rethinking their spending on tourism promotion. Sedona’s tourism bureau is one of a growing list of entities put under greater pressure from legislators and constituents to redirect funds toward destination management and other community goals. A recent Skift megatrend noted that residents in many parts of the world no longer want to be spectators in tourism.

newspaper

Skift Daily Newsletter

Get the travel industry’s daily must-read email 6 days a week

Tourism Surge, Tourism Slump

Two years ago, the Sedona City Council revised its contract with the tourism bureau, stopping the bureau from spending money on destination marketing.

Before the pause, the tourism bureau spent between $500,000 and $600,000 a year on marketing and advertising per year to attract affluent, longer-staying visitors, said Michelle Conway, CEO and president of Sedona Chamber of Commerce & Tourism Bureau. The promotion expenses were only a minority of its expenditure, with destination management the bulk. Yet for the past two years, it only spent money on destination management.

Not everyone’s happy about the move.

Sedona benefited from a surge in tourism in 2021. But last year, business flagged.

Like other rural destinations, Sedona — a hiking and mountain biking destination — is facing wider competition now that the pandemic is over, international travel is open, and cities are attractive again to tourists.

In 2022, Sedona saw a decline in tourist traffic year over year. Meanwhile, direct competitors like Jackson Hole and Napa Valley haven’t seen the same drop and are eating away at Sedona’s share, Conway said.

Many hoteliers are concerned. Occupancy is now down 6.5 percent from its pre-pandemic level. Average daily rates have been dropping.

Hoteliers had been one of the most active stakeholders years ago in pushing for a 0.5 percent addition to the city’s 3 percent bed tax. The 0.5 percent was originally earmarked specifically for tourism promotion. 

Businesses — 60 percent of which are tourism-oriented — are now “suffering” and “asking for help,” Conway said. Some have seen double-digit drops in revenue. On top of lost visitor spending, business operations costs are above pre-Covid levels.

The tourism bureau thought it was time to restart destination marketing. Yet the Sedona City Council wouldn’t budge. It denied requests to jump-start marketing.

To properly support its business stakeholders, the chamber had to break away from the city, its leaders said. It’s confident it will find alternative sources to support future marketing efforts.

2021: The Turning Point

Something of a split between residents and the tourism industry had been appearing before the marketing pause.

Many locals haven’t been happy with changes in their life due to tourism in the last five years, said Ryan Casago, a resident and local vacation rental owner.

The year 2021 was something of a turning point because of overtourism, said Conway. Like other outdoor destinations during the pandemic, Sedona saw an explosion in visitors, with 3.7 million in 2021, up from its annual 3 million, according to the Sedona Chamber of Commerce.

“We were super successful,” said Furman. “Tourists started to flock to Sedona.”

But there were negative consequences.

The city’s road infrastructure was being pushed “close to its limits,” said Furman.

Traffic congestion, longer wait times at restaurants, and poor habits from new outdoor enthusiasts hit the town of 10,000 people. 

The influx of short-term rental properties has cut available housing and changed the community makeup. Conway said there are now more short-term rental rooms than hotel rooms (2,800), which has added to the angst of the locals.

Affordable and available housing has become harder to come by for large segments of the local workforce, said Furman. 

Such stress on community, physical, and natural infrastructure was a common problem among destinations in 2021 and 2022 in response to unprecedented tourism. What commonly followed were communities questioning the value of tourism promotion. In Jackson Hole, Wyoming, for example, residents have directly questioned its tourism board about ceasing marketing.

Destination marketing tactics like filling in slow seasons and promoting lesser-used trails instead of popular attractions do more harm than good, said Furman. Lesser known trails not set up for parking suffered overcapacity, for example, which pushed the tourist parking to other locations. 

“All those decisions have unintended consequences of pissing off the locals,” he said. 

Tough Choices

The chamber doesn’t have an alternative funding source yet. The details of which funding model to use to replace the loss of bed tax dollars are still being worked out, but the business community said it’s fully behind whatever the chamber does.

Come July 1, when the current contract ends, the chamber will have to do “what it needs to survive,” said Conway. That may include operational and program cuts. Details on who will be responsible for which destination management programs and projects are still being worked out, but the chamber expects to have less on its plate.

With the contract over, Conway is “excited” about the new opportunities for creative marketing now that it won’t have its hands tied. One area of interest is potentially expanding marketing to include the greater Verde Valley that Sedona sits in — highlighting the region’s diversity of towns, wine country, and art communities.

Meanwhile, the city council is looking at hiring a consultant to help internally manage and mitigate the impacts of tourism.

“I don’t see a lot of energy in the near term to do destination marketing,” said Furman.

Tags: arizona, destination management, destination marketing, destination marketing organizations, funding, outdoor tourism, rural tourism, sedona, sustainable tourism, tourism boards, tourism marketing, us travel

Photo credit: Sedona’s tourism agency fired its city council and went its own way to pursue destination marketing. Source: Unsplash.

City council debates freedom of speech, rejects 2 proposed restrictions

By Tim Perry

The members of the Sedona City Council refused to approve proposed changes to the council’s rules of procedure at their March 28 meeting on the grounds that the modifications would interfere with freedom of speech.

City attorney Kurt Christianson proposed three significant alterations to Rule 6, which deals with residents’ interaction with the council. The first amendment, to Rule 6.A.1, would have specified that subjects addressed by speakers during the public forum would have to be “within the jurisdiction of the council.”

The second amendment, to Rule 6.A.3, would have struck out the three-minute standard time limit for speakers and prohibited advocacy for or against any candidate or ballot measure. The third amendment, to Rule 6.B, would have added language stating that “members of the public shall not engage in disorderly, disruptive, disturbing, delaying or boisterous conduct, such as, but not limited to, handclapping, stomping of feet, whistling, making noise, use of profane language or obscene gestures, yelling or similar demonstrations, when such conduct substantially interrupts, delays, or disturbs the peace and good order of the proceedings of the council.”

Council members were not persuaded of the need for all of these changes. Councilman Pete Furman described them as unwarranted.

“I would rather be on the side of free speech than not,” Furman said.

“I find Councilor Furman’s argument for free speech to be compelling,” Councilman Brian Fultz agreed.

“Our citizens think everything’s in our jurisdiction,” Councilwoman Jessica Williamson said, addressing the proposed change to Rule 6.A.1. “The airport’s in our jurisdiction. ATVs weren’t in our jurisdiction, yet we’ve certainly embraced doing something about them, so I’m not sure that I think this is needed.”

“People are going to talk about whatever they want to talk about,” Councilwoman Melissa Dunn commented.

“I’d rather spend three minutes listening to them than spend two and a half minutes trying to cut them off,” Mayor Scott Jablow said.

“This is a problem that doesn’t exist,” Vice Mayor Holli Ploog said.

The council elected to preserve the addition of language to the rule reminding speakers to address their remarks to the council as a whole, but rejected the imposition of a content limitation.

Council also found the language of the second proposed alteration to the rules to be unacceptable, although Christianson argued that it was necessary to conform to state statutes prohibiting the use of city property for electioneering.

“I do not agree with Rule 6.A.3,” Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella said. “I think this is a forum for people to get up and speak about ballot measures, especially because some of them are city ballot measures … I want to know where the public stands on state ballot measures … I think this limits speech. I do not support this additional language.”

“I am really opposed to this, and I do not believe that a court is going to hold us accountable for a member of the public who comes up and speaks for three minutes, who has a right to free speech,” Ploog said.

“I would rather lean toward allowing it than cutting it,” Jablow said.

By consensus, the council decided to reject the new language.

The proposed changes to Rule 6.B, which would have involved the insertion of two new paragraphs, prompted more discussion and a somewhat different approach from council.

“Tighten that language up,” Furman suggested. “Don’t have that list.”

He argued that the language of 6.B.1, governing residents’ behavior, should be as similar as possible to the language of 6.B.2, governing council members’ behavior.

“I like the image of us having an equal playing field. I actually think the city council should be more limited,” Furman said.

Christianson explained that he had used the language from an ordinance of Costa Mesa, Calif., that had been found to be constitutional by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Acosta v. Costa Mesa in 2013. He described the inclusion of a list of prohibited actions as “a bit of a warning to the public … it’s always going to be a case-by-case basis.”

“I support this language change because it makes it clear that it’s only when the conduct disturbs,” Kinsella said. “It clarifies that if somebody does clap, it’s OK.”

“I don’t read it that way,” Furman said. “I think the public would interpret this as we’re telling them they can’t clap.”

Williamson said allowing nonverbal expression at council meetings could lead to proponents of minority views being “booed and hissed,” but acknowledged that such a concern was “overruled by the intent of free speech” and expressed support for Christianson’s choice of language.

“The notion of erring toward free speech has come up multiple times,” Fultz said. “I support Kurt’s assertion that following the Circuit Court language specifically is sufficient.”

“I believe, based on what I’ve heard out of this discussion, that this council wants to increase its commitment to freedom of speech, and I’m very confident with what we have in place right now,” Fultz added.

Furman agreed to accept the language approved by the Ninth Circuit, but reminded the council that the mayor also has the latitude to manage meetings as he sees fit, after which the council voted to accept the proposed changes to Rule 6.B.

The council also approved a modification to Rule 4.A.4.f.1 that brings the city into compliance with state law by removing the mayor’s power to order the closing of any business during a state of emergency.