The Sedona City Council considered the possibility of installing a permanent flagpole at Posse Grounds Park on Oct. 22, but Mayor Scott Jabrough and Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella moved to continue with a proposal to avoid it. As such, we plan to return to this issue at an unspecified point in the future. It could be rejected by a 3-3 vote. Tie votes automatically fail.

The request for a permanent flagpole was originally submitted by Councilman Pete Furman, who was absent, and was presented to the City Council by Jack Ross, president of the Sedona Area Veterans and Community Outreach nonprofit.

“There were concerns that the view, known as the Million Dollar View, would be obstructed during the wedding ceremony,” Ross said, but SAVCO members and Department of Parks and Recreation Coordinator Jason Virgo He added that they were able to reach an agreement on a location that would cause minimal disturbance. .

“Our hope is that the city will procure the flagpole, the city’s maintenance department will install it, and we at SAVCO will work with Parks and Recreation to maintain it,” Ross explained. He proposed a 30-foot-tall flagpole with lights “for about $2,800” to fly a 4-foot-by-6-foot flag that would need to be replaced every six months.

“This happens to be the same height as the one at the military park,” Ross said, noting that the temporary flagpole that SAVCO installed for the Memorial Day event was 7 meters high. For comparison, the Barbara Antonsen Memorial Pavilion is 24 feet 7 inches tall. Ross also recommended purchasing a model with a built-in hoist. “With everything outside, there’s a risk that kids will come in at night and try to take the flag from Sedona.”

“Why can’t we just install it at whatever level is approved?” asked outgoing City Council member Jessica Williamson. City code limits flagpoles to a maximum height of 22 feet.

“How small do you want it to be? The pavilion is pretty big,” Ross said. “The flag is pretty big at 4-by-6, so the smaller the flagpole, the less it looks right like it’s on a fishing pole. 25 is pretty small.”

Councilor Kathy Kinsella was concerned about the light she saw from neighboring homes.

“It will blend in at about the same height that the pavilion will be visible from many homes,” Parks and Recreation Manager Josh Fulwin said. “You’ll definitely be able to see it from those houses, so you’ll be able to see the light in the houses below as well.”

“It’s not a spreading light,” Ross says.

“Have you actually talked to the people who have to see this from their back door?” asked City Councilor Melissa Dunn. “Even if you’re looking down, it’s reflected back to you.”

“That’s not the case,” Frewin said. He said an alternative could be to have a permanent pole with no flags displayed except during events, but added, “In my opinion, it doesn’t look good to just have a pole there 363 days a year.” It’s going to get worse,” he said.

“I certainly support putting the flag up here…but why not have a 22-foot limit?” Kinsella said.

“It’s made in 5-foot increments,” Ross said.

“So does that mean the 22-foot limit actually means you’ll need a 20-foot pole, and you feel like that’s not enough?” Kinsella asked.

“Sure,” Ross said. He then agreed that the 25-foot permanent pole was “acceptable” and suggested the possibility of hoisting a second flag from the pole “if we wanted to get more out of it.”

“I prefer the option of flying temporary flags where appropriate,” Mr Williamson said. Regarding the permanent pole, “we will only support up to 25 people.”

Kinsella agreed, saying she could not support a permanent facility due to the lack of support for neighbors so far.

“I support what is requested. There is no need for exceptions or changes,” said City Councilman Brian Fultz.

“Dark sky compliant lighting is not an issue if the flag itself is intended to be reflective,” Dunn says. “I’m concerned about the reflectance at night, because to some extent it will violate the dark sky. There are a lot of houses nearby and that could be visible. I don’t think you’ll be offended. But I don’t know, so I’d appreciate it if you could talk to your neighbors.”

Both Mr. Jabrow and Vice Mayor Holli Ploeg supported SAVCO’s proposal as written.

“I don’t see any difference between a 25-year-old and a 30-year-old,” Jaburo said. He then suggested that the project be withdrawn for the time being because “I don’t want to fail.”

“A motion to continue this item would be best,” said City Attorney Kurt Christianson, who introduced the motion by Kinsella and sponsored by Williamson.

Mr. Dunn asked for clarification that the vote was postponed due to Mr. Furman’s absence.

“That’s right,” said Mr. Plog.

“It was Pete’s idea,” Jabrow said.

The council approved the motion to proceed 4-2, with Fultz and Ploeg voting against it.