Councilman Dan Surber, who voted in the 5-2 majority on June 10, requested reconsideration, deciding shortly after the meeting that the city council may have committed to the plan without enough information, he said in a June 17 telephone interview. (Photo: votedansurber.com)

Sedona City Council may reconsider ‘lights’ vote

by Cyndy Hardy

Sedona, AZ - June 17, 2008 - The Sedona City Council may reconsider its June 10 vote that kiboshed 10 proposed street lights along a stretch of Hwy. 89A in West Sedona, which were recommended by the city’s pedestrian safety advisory committee.

Hwy. 89A is a state road, except a portion in Uptown. The city requested the Arizona Department of Transportation respond to local safety concerns, which began in early 2006 after many pedestrian-versus-vehicle accidents since 2001, including four deaths.

The pedestrian committee was formed in 2007 after considerable public outrage when the City Council approved ADOT’s proposal to install 76 street lights.

Personal and political differences marred the committee’s work, most notably a rift over whether the final report should include any reference to street lighting. A draft final report that did not include lighting was released to the press in February, which City Manager Eric Levitt said was not the consensus of the group.

Mr. Levitt withdrew his support; and Keep Sedona Beautiful President Barbara Litrell urged the public to demand the City Council accept the draft report as written.

“I was not urging [the council] to accept the recommendations without question – I was just urging them to accept the recommendations because the committee had worked hard and long, and with much research, showing that lights were the least effective improvement to be made,” Ms. Litrell said in a June 16 email interview.

At its final meeting in April, the committee reached a dramatic compromise agreeing to recommend 10 street lights in a section of the corridor. Committee member Cliff Ochser was the lone dissident.

Residents speculated about the vote

Many were surprised when the City Council accepted many of the recommendations, but placed the 10 lights in a “long-term” basket to be considered as part of the city’s Master Community Redevelopment Plan.

The vote also terminated approved federal funding of about $2 million earmarked for a pedestrian lighting project. The actual project costs were estimated at about $1.7 million, according to Traffic Engineer Chuck Gillick.

With the loss of federal funding, some believe that the 10 lights recommendation will never be implemented.

Some said the vote represented a political shift from the ‘old guard.’ Others said it was the result of strong influence from special interest groups – specifically KSB.

Mr. Blackwell was perceived by some to represent KSB on the committee. He denied this in a June 16 telephone interview, saying he donates money to KSB and participates in volunteer activities, but has turned down KSB’s invitations to serve on any of its boards or committees and does not attend its meetings.

“In fact, KSB was pissed that I agreed to the compromise,” he said.

“Expert” testimony

Others criticized the council for rejecting expert testimony from police, fire and state representatives who served on the committee, including a ruthless editorial in the Sedona Red Rock News.

“I don't know where you get the idea that the council rejected expert testimony,” Mr. Adams stated July 16 in an email response to this reporter’s request for comment.

The question was also posed to other members of the committee.

“The committee was provided with information from our police reports, statements from the drivers involved in the fatal collisions, and the opinions of investigating officers. All of these indicated that the lack of illumination in this part of the road [where the majority of pedestrian/vehicle accidents occurred] was a factor that led to the deaths of the pedestrians,” said Sedona Police Chief Joe Vernier in a June 16 email interview.

“My position on this has been pretty clear from the beginning. I still believe we need some form of illumination in the area for the safety of pedestrians and motorists,” Mr. Vernier said.

Mr. Blackwell, who presented testimony and data, that some have said eclipsed that presented by government officials, said, “The expert testimony that ‘some’ speak of ... the ‘some’ are bogus. The fire [district] and police department members of the 89A safety panel voted for the safety recommendations along with the rest of the panel.”

Mr. Blackwell said he has two degrees in electronics engineering with statistical analysis and business law interests as minor subject areas of study; and that he was certified in California to teach driver’s education.

“I have numerous engineering designs that have been successful in the marketplace. I wrote a nearly 500 page industry bluebook for 10 straight years. I have written, and had accepted, new rules and practices for companies such as AAA Insurance and AARP. I was one of the first to apply for the Space Shuttle Passenger Program when General John Abramson was in charge of NASA in the mid 80s, [although] I did not go into space,” Mr. Blackwell said.

Why reconsider the vote?

Councilman Dan Surber, who voted in the 5-2 majority on June 10, requested reconsideration, deciding shortly after the meeting that the City Council may have committed to the plan without enough information, he said in a June 17 telephone interview.

Mr. Surber said the pedestrian safety committee had months to deliberate its recommendations, but the City Council – three of whom were seated May 27 – was expected to make a decision based mostly on the committee’s final report.

“Hopefully, everyone [on the council] did their homework. But we should look at more than just what was in the report. I think some information didn’t come out,” Mr. Surber said.

The city has not analyzed the costs, who will pay, and who bears the liabilities, Mr. Surber said, adding that the committee’s function was to recommend, but the council must do more than ‘rubber-stamp’ those recommendations.

The pedestrian safety committee was not instructed to consider or provide the costs of its recommendations, according to committee member Doug Blackwell. “We’re a safety committee, not a budget committee,” he said.

The plan the council approved on June 10 commits the city to short-term solutions that officials agree bear minimal costs:

• Reduce the speed limit between Airport Road and Dry Creek Rd from 40mph to 35mph.
• Improved enforcement of jaywalking, bicycle, and vehicle laws.
• Educate residents and tourists about safety precautions on 89A.
• Notices and/or barriers encouraging pedestrians to use crosswalks and to restrict mid-street crossing.

ADOT District Engineer John Harper reportedly told the council that the short-term options would be at risk if the council eliminated the 10 recommended street lights.

Mr. Gillick said the $2 million was effectively put back in the federal pot, subject to competition from other communities, Mr. Gillick said. ADOT must reapply with the city’s approved recommendations.

If approved, ADOT and the city may not have any implementation costs, Mr. Gillick said. If it’s not approved, the costs revert back to ADOT and the city, he said. “ADOT can do some of the short-term items on its own. It’s the big-dollar things like medians and lighting …,” he said.

“The short term solutions do not require a large capital expenditure so I believe they can be covered from a contingency fund,” Mr. Adams stated in the June 16 email.

The city committed to long-term solutions; including raised medians and pedestrian barriers that will coincide with the Redevelopment Plan, which is in its early stages and may not be complete, including the public process, until about 2012.

The committee was also not instructed to design its recommendations.

“The community may not want medians and pedestrian barriers,” Mr. Surber said – a reason he initiated possible reconsideration. And the city is looking at possible form-based codes, which may not have been considered by the pedestrian safety committee, he said.

The city also committed to a signalized crosswalk at Andante Drive, which is expected within 18 to 24 months. Ms. Litrell estimated the cost at about $450,000 in August 2007, which is accurate, Mr. Gillick said in a June 17 telephone interview.

Paying the piper

“We will hopefully receive federal grant money through ADOT, but the amount and timeframe are unknown. The remainder will be funded by the city,” Mr. Surber said.

Sedona owns one leg of the intersection and ADOT owns the remaining two, so the costs of the signalized crossing would be divided in thirds, Mr. Gillick said.

Because the light signal at Andante will take 18 to 24 months, it will be included in next year’s budget, according to Mr. Adams.

“It makes no sense to approve most of the long term solutions before we have determined what we ultimately want the Hwy. 89A corridor to look like. We don't know if we will have roundabouts or a divided highway. We don't know how we will envision the business sector along the corridor or if we will be considering some form of alternative transit along that route,” he said.

Breaking up the package could render it less effective in terms of safety, meaning it is less likely to receive federal funding, Mr. Gillick said, referring to the elimination of the 10 lights. “There’s a reason those things are in there – from education to lighting,” he said.

The issue is tentatively agendized for the next regular council meeting, scheduled for 4:30 p.m. on June 24 at City Hall, according to City Manager Eric Levitt.

The June 10 vote is not subject to reversal at the June 24 meeting. The City Council will only discuss whether to reconsider the vote. If four of the seven members agree, reconsideration of the June 10 vote will be scheduled for a future meeting.

The council may only reconsider a matter within seven days of an action, upon request of a member who voted in the majority, according to Rule 2 F of the Sedona City Council Rules and Procedures. After 60 days any council member can request reconsideration.

The rules state that the city attorney must review any request for reconsideration for potential legal liabilities and advise the City Council accordingly in writing or in closed session.

“ADOT will have a response to the city as to what’s acceptable or not after more internal discussion,” Mr. Gillick said. It is possible that ADOT could take control of the issue although the agency would like to reach consensus with the city, he said.

After all, it is a state road and the cat was let out of the bag when the city asked ADOT to study the merits of pedestrian safety measures.

© 2008 Cyndy Hardy. This article may not be reproduced, republished or distributed without written permission from the author. Contact the author at cyndyhardy@msn.com.

[Home Page] [News Home Page] [Back to Community Page]