The Desert Advocate

Editor | Links | Contact Us | Home

Classifieds | News | Events

Brian A. Barbour photo

A truck kicks up dust on Celestial Street last week. Carefree has spoken to residents there about complying with a mandated dust mitigation project on their road. Many of the residents are opposed to any upgrades.
(Click picture for full size image)

Celestial Street residents unhappy over proposed improvements
Town/residents taking 60 days to explore all options
by Brian DiTullio

CAREFREE – A mandate for dust control is causing anger among residents along Celestial Street who wish their roadway to remain unchanged.

Councilmen David Schwan and Glen Miller, along with Town Manager Jon Pearson, Street Coordinator Patrick Neal and Public Works Superintendent Stan Francom, presented the street improvement issue to the affected homeowners and listened to their concerns during a Sept. 11 public meeting.

Schwan officiated at the proceedings, informing residents state mandates on dust control, handed down by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act, have created a need to improve Celestial Street, currently a roadbed made up of decomposed granite.

The councilman explained that the town spoke to a contractor about doing chip seal on the road, “the least impactful way” of dealing with the issue, but the contractor said the road is in such bad condition that they wouldn’t do the job, as it would only last a few weeks.

Schwan also pointed out the standards for roads in municipalities have been raised over the years and that Celestial Street is too narrow in places and could be deemed “unsafe,” leaving the town open to lawsuits should a roadway‑caused accident occur there.

“The town is liable if the roadway is unsafe,” said Schwan. “The town would be sued if the roads don’t meet the minimum standards.”

Pearson explained that Celestial Street needs some kind of binding aggregate base to allow dust‑control measures to be applied.

But about 10 residents expressed anger over the improvement proposal, stating they like the unfinished road the way it is and that it fits with the character of their neighborhood.

Questions raised by those residents included: Why can’t more caution signs be put up? Why does one small road with little traffic, in a town with more than 45 miles of roads, make a difference regarding pollution control? And, would the town consider vacating the road and turning it into a private drive?

Pearson replied to the signage question, stating if a “Dangerous Road” sign was put up, the town would be admitting there is a problem and further exposing it to a lawsuit.

Francom informed those present that air quality standards aren’t broken down by volume, explaining the mandate is what it is and that, once the town was told to comply, they no longer had a choice in the matter.

On the possible road‑vacation issue, Schwan said if that’s what the people on that road want to do, then they could bring it to town council for a public hearing and vote. However, he reminded them that they still would be subject to the mandate on dust control and would have to pay for any road improvements themselves. And, as a private drive, the town would not be responsible for any associated costs.

One resident asked about having the road monitored, saying the number of trips on that road shouldn’t warrant dust controls.

Neal talked about a possible solution that would have the least impact on the road’s appearance, but that it would have to be re‑applied every six to eight months.

It was decided the residents would take 60 days to explore all options and then have another meeting with the town before any final decisions are made.

Back To News