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.”