The Sedona City Council considered the possible installation of a permanent flagpole at Posse Grounds Park on Oct. 22, and will return to the question at some unspecified point in the future, after Mayor Scott Jablow and Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella moved to continue the proposal to avoid its being voted down in a possible 3-3 vote. Tied votes automatically fail.

The request for a permanent flagpole was initially made by Councilman Pete Furman, who was absent, and was presented to council by Jack Ross, president of the Sedona Area Veteran and Community Outreach nonprofit.

“There was fears that it could block a view that’s called the million-dollar view during weddings,” Ross said, but added that SAVCO members and Parks and Recreation Department coordinator Jason Vargo had been able to agree on a location considered to be minimally obstructive.

“Our hope is that the city would procure the flagpole, city maintenance would install it and we, SAVCO, would work with parks and recreation to maintain it,” Ross explained. He proposed a 30-foot-tall flagpole with a light “for about $2,800,” flying four-foot-by-six-foot flags that would have to be replaced every six months.

“This happens to be the same height as the one at the military park,” Ross said, and pointed out that the temporary flagpole SAVCO installed for a Memorial Day event had been 25 feet high. For comparison, the Barbara Antonsen Memorial Pavilion stands 24 feet 7 inches tall. Ross also urged buying a model with an internal hoist: “If everything’s on the outside, there’s a danger of kids coming by at night and go, hey, let’s get a flag from Sedona.”

“Why can’t you just have it at — whatever the approved level is — height?” outgoing Councilwoman Jessica Williamson asked. City code limits flagpoles to 22 feet in height.

“How small do you want it? The pavilion’s pretty big,” Ross said. “The flag is pretty big, four by six, so the smaller the flagpole, it just doesn’t look right, like being on a fishing pole … 25 is pretty small.”

Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella was concerned about the light’s appearance as viewed from neighboring homes.

“It would blend right in about the same height that they can see the pavilion from a lot of those houses,” Parks and Recreation Manager Josh Frewin said. “It would definitely be visible from those homes. So the light would be visible to homes below as well.”

“It’s not a light that spreads out,” Ross said.

“Have you actually talked to the people who will have to look at this from their back porches?” Councilwoman Melissa Dunn asked. “Even though it points down, it still reflects out.”

“We have not, for that,” Frewin said. He said an alternative would be to install a permanent pole without flying a flag except during events, but “in my opinion, just having the pole stand there by itself for 363 days of the year would be a worse look.”

“I certainly support a flag at this location … but why wouldn’t we just go with a 22-foot limitation?” Kinsella said.

“They’re built in five-foot increments,” Ross said.

“So you’re saying that the 22-foot limitation would actually mean that we would have a 20-foot pole and that you feel that’s insufficient?” Kinsella asked.

“Certainly,” Ross said. He then agreed that a 25-foot permanent pole would be “acceptable” and suggested the possibility of flying a second flag from the pole “if you wanted more use out of that.”

“I prefer the option of having the temporary flag put up on occasions where it’s appropriate,” Williamson said. “I would only support up to 25” for a permanent pole.

Kinsella agreed, stating that she would not be able to support a permanent installation due to the lack of neighborhood outreach so far.

“I support the ask as asked, no exceptions or need for alterations,” Councilman Brian Fultz said.

“Dark sky-compliant lighting doesn’t matter if the flags themselves are meant to be reflective,” Dunn said. “I am concerned about reflectivity at night, because that is a violation of dark sky to some extent … there are a lot of homes that are nearby and would see it. I would assume they wouldn’t be offended but I don’t know that, so I would appreciate if we just have a conversation with the neighborhood.”

Jablow and Vice Mayor Holli Ploog both supported the SAVCO proposal as written.

“I don’t see a difference between 25 or 30,” Jablow said. He then proposed withdrawing the item for the moment because “I don’t want it to fail.”

“A motion to continue the item would be best,” City Attorney Kurt Christianson said, which was then proposed by Kinsella and seconded by Williamson.

Dunn asked to clarify that the vote was postponed due to Furman’s absence.

“That’s correct, ” Ploog said.

“It was Pete’s idea,” Jablow said.

Council approved the motion to continue 4-2, with Fultz and Ploog opposed.