Anniston council debates speed-calming ordinance; asks Public Works for engineering assessments and measurable criteria

Council members discussed proposed amendments to the city’s ordinance governing speed-calming devices and removal criteria for installed devices.

Council member Downey led the discussion on a draft amendment that would remove a requirement calling for “67% of the residents of all properties in the affected area” to sign a petition to remove a device. Downey said he feared the council would be unable to refuse requests if no measurable criteria were provided: “If it comes to us, if our constituents are asking, we’re just gonna agree to it,” he said.

Multiple council members said they wanted clear, measurable criteria and an engineering or Public Works recommendation before a device could be installed. One member said Police Chief Bose had conducted spot observations in the past and sometimes findings did not match neighborhood reports. Council members insisted assessments should document historical crash or enforcement records or include new targeted traffic counts covering a specific time frame.

A commentator on liability noted the city could face municipal liability if a device installed improperly led to vehicles leaving the roadway; the council agreed that factoring safety into any recommendation was essential.

Council members also discussed a separate agenda item to remove school-zone signage around Tenth Street Elementary, which no longer operates as a school. A council member said the school signs were “arbitrary” once a school is not present and requested staff remove provisional speed-limit and other school-related signs.

Council members agreed to circulate a revised draft ordinance that would require Public Works to perform an assessment and provide a written recommendation that documents identified safety concerns and data supporting installation or denial. The council requested staff place the revised ordinance on a future agenda for further action.