Public Weighs In On ATV Street Access Ordinance

IRONWOOD, MI - Tuesday, September 14, 2010 - On Monday, September 13, 2010, the Ironwood City Commission held a Public Hearing t0 hear comment on Ordinance No. 478, Book 4, an Ordinance providing for the amendment to the “Code of Ordinances”, City of Ironwood, Michigan, Chapter 30 Traffic and Motor Vehicle, Article II Uniform Traffic Code, by Adding a New Division 11. (All Terrain Vehicle use on City Streets).

Mayor Bob Burchell opened the public hearing at 5:15 PM by asking City Manager Scott Erickson to highlight the proposed Ordinance (below):

ORDINANCE NO. 478, BOOK 4

AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT TO THE “CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF IRONWOOD, MICHIGAN, CHAPTER 30 TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLES, ARTICLE II UNIFORM TRAFFIC CODE, BY ADDING A NEW DIVISION 11. ALL TERRAIN VEHICLES USE ON CITY STREETS.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY OF IRONWOOD ORDAINS:

That Div. 11 be added to Chapter 30 Traffic and Motor Vehicles, Article II Uniform Traffic Code.

DIV. 11. – ALL TERRAIN VEHICLE USE ON CITY STREETS

The City of Ironwood ORDAINS:

That Div. II be added to Chapter 30 Traffic and Motor Vehicles, Article II Uniform Traffic Code and the same hereby is amended to the following ordinance and adopt to read as follows:

REPEALER

The existing provisions of Chapter 30, Article II shall remain in full force and effect, except that any ordinance, resolution, order or parts thereof in conflict with the provisions of this amendment are, to the extent of such conflict, hereby repealed. This repeal shall be effective as of the effective date of the following amendment.

AMENDMENT

Div. 11

(a) Purpose

The intent of this ordinance is to authorize the establishment of access routes along highways and street within the City of Ironwood for use by all-terrain vehicles (ATVs); establish the terms and conditions upon which such access routes may be used; and for the purpose of providing penalties for the violations thereof, pursuant to the Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, MCL 324.101 et seq.

(b) Definitions

When used in this ordinance, the following words or terms shall have the following meanings:

“Highway” means the entire width between the boundary lines of a way publicly maintained when any part of the way is open to the use of the public for the purpose of vehicular travel. “Highway” includes city streets and alleys.
“Operate” means to ride in or on, and to be in actual control of, the operations of an ATV.
“Operate” means a person who operates or is in actual physical control of the operation of an ATV.
“ATV” or “All Terrain Vehicle” means 3-, 4-, or 6 wheeled vehicle designed for off-road use that has low-pressure tires, has a seat designed to be straddled by the rider, and is powered by a 50 cc to 1,000 cc gasoline engine and or an engine of comparable size using other fuels or such other definitions as may be provided by State Law.

“Roadway” means that portion of a highway improved, designated, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, not including the shoulders. If a highway includes two or more separate roadways, the term roadway refers to a roadway separately, but not to all roadways collectively.

“Shoulder” means that portion of the highway contiguous to the roadway,

generally extending the contour of the roadway, not specifically designed for vehicular travel, but maintained for the temporary accommodations of disabled or stopped vehicles which are otherwise permitted on the roadway.

(7) “Residence” means place in which one lives or dwells.

Unless specifically designated otherwise as provided herein, all highways,

City streets and alleys within the City are hereby designated to be access routes upon which ATVs may be operated for the purpose of providing access to an d from areas where ATV operation is permitted. Such access routes do not include or involve state or federal highways.

The City Commission is hereby authorized, by Resolution, to designate those

highways, streets or alleys, and city owned property under its jurisdiction, or parts or sections there, upon which the operation of ATVs shall be permitted.

The City shall maintain a map of all highways and streets under its

jurisdiction, upon which shall be indicated all such highways and streets and

parts or sections thereof upon which the operations of ATVs is prohibited.

Copies of such map shall be maintained and made available to the public

upon payment of the cost of reproduction thereof.

(d) Regulations on ATV Operation

No ATV shall be operated on any highway, street, alley, or any part or section

thereof, under the jurisdiction of the City where the operation of ATVs on

such highway or street, or part or section thereof, has been specifically prohibited by Resolution of the City Commission.

An ATV operated on a highway, street, or alley pursuant to this ordinance shall at all times be operated:

A) For the purpose of gaining access to or from ~~areas where ATV~~

~~operation is permitted the most direct route;~~ an individual residence to

a City, County, or State designated trail using the most direct route;

On the outermost five (5) feet of the shoulder, or, in situations where no delineated shoulder exists, then on the outermost right side of the roadway, but not on grassy areas of areas not normally used for vehicular travel.

C) In single file, with the flow of traffic:

In compliance with all of the provisions of statutes, rules, regulations,

and ordinances applicable to such ATV operation;

Hours of operation shall be regulated by resolution of the City Commission.

At a speed not to exceed fifteen (15) miles per hour; unless otherwise designated by Resolution of the City Commission.

Only between April 1^st and November 30^th.

Pursuant to the Michigan Department of Natural Resource & Environmental Protection Act, MCL 324.101 et. seq. including but not limited to the following:

a) A child less than 16 years of age shall not operate an ORV on a

road or street in the county unless the child is under the direct

visual supervision of an adult and the child has in his or her

immediate possession a Michigan issued ORV safety certificate or a

comparable ORV safety certificate issued under the authority of

another state or a province of Canada.

b) while the operator and each passenger is wearing a crash helmet

and protective eyewear approved by the United States Department

of Transportation unless the vehicle is equipped with a roof that

meets or exceeds standards for a crash helmet and the operator and

each passenger is wearing a property adjusted and fastened seat

belt.

An ATV may be operated on the roadway of a highway, street or alley under

the jurisdiction of the City, whether or not such operations has been prohibited, only;

In a life threatening emergency; or

An ATV may not be operated:

On the part of a highway normally occupied by ditches, front slopes, back slopes, or utilities, such areas being more specifically defined as those parts of the highway between the outside shoulder point and the right of way, and shall yield the right of way to Oncoming traffic, per MCL 324.81122.

Upon, along, or within federal or state highways;

On those shoulders specifically designated as non-motorized facilities; or

In violation of any of the provisions of MCL 324.811101 et seq. and the various subsections thereof, as amended, as well as all other statutes, rules, regulations, and ordinances applicable to such ATV operations.

(e) Revocation of ATV Designation

The City Commission may, from time to time, by Resolution, prohibit ATV use upon any highway, street or alley, and city owned property under its jurisdiction or any part or section thereof, with or without cause, when such action is deemed appropriate by the City Commission.

(f) Permit

A permit shall be obtained from the City of Ironwood for the use of ATVs on City

streets.

(g) Violations and Penalties

Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter is responsible for a civil

infraction, and shall pay a civil fine, plus costs of prosecution, for each offense as follows:

First offense shall be $75 plus costs.
Second offense shall be $150, seven (7) day seizure of ATV plus costs.
Third offense shall be $150, thirty (30) day seizure of ATV plus costs.

~~Any violation shall also constitute possible revocation of the City ATV permit.~~

The above Ordinance shall be published as required by law, and shall be effective upon publication.

ROLL CALL:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

Adopted and approved by the City Commission of the City of Ironwood, Michigan, this ________ day of ___________, 2010. This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption and publication as required by law. This Ordinance applies to the above-described premises and a copy of it may be inspected or purchased at the City Clerk’s Office in the Memorial Building, 213 S. Marquette Street, Ironwood, Michigan during normal business hours.

Adopted and approved by the City Commission of the City of Ironwood, Michigan, this

day of April, 2010. This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption and publication as required by law. This Ordinance applies to the above-described premises, and a copy of it may be inspected or purchased at the City Clerk’s Office in the Memorial Building, 213 S. Marquette Street, Ironwood, Michigan during normal business hours.

Effective: , 2010 ______________________________

ROBERT BURCHELL, MAYOR

ATTEST”

________________________________

KAREN M. GULLAN, CITY CLERK

Published in accordance with Act 207, Michigan Public Acts of 1921, and as amended (MCLA 125.581 et al) and provisions of Chapter 6 of the City Charter, for the City of Ironwood, Michigan on , 2010.

Erickson explained that the City previously held two public input meetings on the issue. He went on to say that the Ordinance has taken approximately six months to develop. He told the Commission and the audience that the proposed ordinance was based on a similar ordinance adopted by the City of Negaunee. Erickson said the proposed ordinance, if passed, would provide the following:

Allow ATV access along highways and streets throughout the City.
All City streets, except those noted on the map below, would be open to ATV use.
The map can be modified via Resolution, if need be.
A 15 mph speed limit would be established for all ATVs used on City streets.
Hours of operation would be established by the City Commission by Resolution. (If the Ordinance is adopted, the hours of operation would need to be established by the Commission in a subsequent meeting.)
ATVs would only be allowed on City streets from April 1st through November 30th.
As echoed in State Law, individuals need to be AT LEAST 16 years of age to legally operate an ATV; or you must carry a valid Michigan ORV safety certificate with you, and you must be accompanied and under the direct supervision of an adult.
In order to legally use an ATV on City streets, according to the proposed ordinance, individuals would be required to obtain a permit from the City. There would be no charge for the permit, but ATV operation without a permit would be a violation of the ordinance.
In addition to the fines and penalties listed in State laws, additional fines and penalties would apply. The first offense would result in a $75 fee plus court costs. The second offense would result in a $150 fee and a seven day forfeiture of the ORV certificate plus costs. The third offense would be a $150 fee, a 30-day forfeiture plus costs.

Following Scott Erickson's brief introduction of the Ordinance, Mayor Bob Burchell opened up the floor to hear public comment. Burchell asked that each speaker stand; state their name; and try to limit their comments to three minutes. He pointed out that more time would be allowed if necessary.

A microphone was passed around the room to make it easier for the audience to hear the various speakers.

The first person to speak on the matter was Don Maki. He asked if the words "City-owned property" implied that ATV use would no longer be permitted in the "Caves" area. He also asked what the cost for the permit would be and why a permit would be required. He pointed out that ATV users purchase gas most of them pay income taxes that go towards street repairs etc. now. He said he was opposed to any fee being charged for ATV use on City streets.

Erickson indicated that there would not be a fee associated with the permit. Erickson pointed out that the ordinance addressed street right-of-ways and that the areas of prohibited use were indicated on the map. He said that the map can be changed at any time to exclude additional areas or to open new areas to ATV use, by Resolution of the City Commission.

Paul Madgziak stated that he felt there was no difference between an ATV or a snowmobile going through the "Caves" or people walking along trails in the area. He asked what would happen if someone fell into one of the caves in the area. He said that snowmobiles are often a nuisance and that if the IPSD is called they ask "Did you get their number? Are they local people?" Madgziak asked, "How am I supposed to get a number off of a speeding snowmobile?" He went on to say that there was no difference between ATVs and snowmobiles, in fact ATVs are not designed to be used on City streets.

"I can't see arguing about these trails and that!" Madgziak said. He said if ATVs aren't allowed then the snowmobiles should be outlawed as well.

"Everybody has a bad apple in every group," a member of the Mud Runners told the Commission, "There's no doubt about it. I have to agree about this heavy fine. I think it needs to be enforced. I know our group, we don't do that! There is a bad apple in every group. I don't care if you're a bicycle rider or a Harley-Davidson rider, or anything. You always have that bad apple. So, let's not close the streets down because of a few bad apples. Just enforce it! Give them the hefty fine. Take their wheelers away. Take their bikes away, no matter what they're doing, if they're violating it -- they make the rest of us look bad." He told the Commission that he's lived here for ten years. He moved from California to live here. He likes living in a nice small town. He went on to say that there is no reason all outdoor enthusiasts -- ATVers, snowmobilers, and walkers -- can't get along. He said there is enough land out there and that the City shouldn't be taking up so much of their time fighting over something so simple. He suggested even heavier fines for repeat offenders, including $300 and over and confiscation of ATVs for up to a year.

Bernie Finco asked the Commission if ATVing would be allowed anywhere on the road or only on the shoulder. Mayor Burchell explained that they are only permitted on the shoulder, according to the proposed ordinance. He also stated that they would not be able to travel on the grass to prevent damage. Finco pointed out that ATVs don't have turn signals.

He also asked what happens if an ATV causes damage or injures someone. "Who's going to cover? What insurance?" He pointed out that he has to have his car insured on the road. He made it clear that he didn't oppose the ordinance, but he also made it clear that he is required to follow the rules of the road when he uses his car on the streets.

Burchell said the matter of insurance was previously discussed, but the proposed ordinance didn't address the issue.

Michael Lehto, an Ironwood resident, told the Commission that he snowmobiles, uses ATVs, walks and bikes on the trails. "Open access is the way to go!" He went on to say that the proposed speed limit of 15 mph should be changed to 25 mph in town. He said the speeds should be consistent with the normal speed limits for the street.

Walter Maki, representing Cloverland Motors and Rentals, addressed the Commission. He said he was somewhat in favor of the ordinance, speaking on behalf of the business. He said, however, he disagreed with the permitting requirement. He said many of his out-of-town customers visit several times a year for parts and service. "How are they going to do that without a permit?" he asked.

Burchell explained that the permit was designed to restrict street traffic on ATVs to local use only. He said that there was a gray area regarding the issue.

Maki pointed out that his customers, even though they are in close proximity to Trail #2, are violating the law to patronize his business. He also pointed out that many visitors to the area that come to use the ATV trials arrive on Friday evening and leave by Sunday afternoon. The City offices are closed, and even if they wanted to abide by the law, they would be unable to have a permit issued. Maki pointed out that the newly proposed ordinance could put his job at risk. He said he spends his money locally. He supports local merchants and pays local taxes. "That's cutting out an outside source for our revenue!" Maki told the Commission. He went on to say that he supported stiffer penalties for violators of the ordinance.

Scott Erickson reminded the audience that the current State law forbids use of ATVs on all streets and roads designed for automobile traffic. He emphasized that this new ordinance would allow ATVs to access the trails using City streets.

"So everybody's breaking the law in Ironwood right now!" an audience member quipped.

Greg Pisani explained to the Commission that he fully supported the proposed ordinance. However, he opposed the idea of a permit. He said that visitors to the area coming from Hurley might assume the streets of Ironwood are open to ATV usage, only to be ticketed for not having a permit. He said issuing tickets to out-of-town visitors could be disastrous for ATV tourism in the area. He said word spreads quickly, and if Ironwood isn't ATV friendly, people will not spend their toursim dollars here.

Pisani told the Commission that a 15 mph speed limit for ATVs would acutally make them more of a hazard than if they followed the flow of traffic. He said that motorists traveling behind an ATV traveling at 15 mph may get aggetated and attempt to pass the slower moving ATV. He suggested having ATVs travel at the regularly posted speed limits for the streets involved. He also told the Commission that mopeds are not required to have a license. He said they are on City streets and on the highway. He said he believes that everybody agrees with the strict fines.

Kim Kolesar, resident of the City, told the Commission that she supported the ordinance as long as it doesn't close "Caves" access and that no permit is required. She continued by asking several questions:

What are the requirement of obtaining the proposed ATV permit? Is insurance required? Are the ATVs to be inspected? What are the standards and requirements?

Erickson told Kolesar that none of the requirements have yet been established. Those details would need to be addressed once the ordinance is adopted. Burchell pointed out that ATV users, at the time they pick up their permit, would be given brochures on State laws and City oridinances that relate to ATV usage. Burchell also pointed out that the permit would allow the City to inspect the ATVs to insure that they are safe and that they are adequately equipped with mufflers to suppress the noise.

Will this permit be a sticker or what will it be?

Erickson said, at the current time, a sticker is planned that would be attached to the ATV, but the City was open to suggestions.

An audience member asked who would be responsible for issuing the permit? IPSD? State Police? And he also brought up the fact that permitting machines could be a very costly proposition for the City.

Burchell said that it would allow people to follow the rules, and he pointed out that people are not following the rules at this time.

Can people who purchase or rent vacation properties in Ironwood get permits even though they are not considered residents?

Burchell said that people who own or rent vacation property could bring in their deed or lease (or note from their landlord) and receive a permit.

Would their be one permit per household? Or would their be one permit per machine?

"Per machine." Burchell answered.

If permits only allow residents to travel the most direct routes to the trails, Kolesar noted, she feels that the ordinance is not business friendly at all. Burchell pointed out that the City is not quite sure how to address the business issue. He said discussion has taken place to establish a northern business route that would access Rigoni's, the Aurora Club, the Norrie Club, and that area, but no group came forward to help create such a plan. He also mentioned that there has been discussion regarding business access from Trail #2. That issue is still open for discussion, Burchell pointed out.

How will this Ordinance be enforced?

Kolesar said she believes the burden will fall upon the IPSD. She questioned if the additional requirements of the new ordinance would create a huge amount of extra work for the department. She also asked if they could legally just stop somebody, without probable cause, to see if they are a resident or not. She said it doesn't seem right if the City is allowed to do that.

Erickson told Kolesar that the Ordinance is designed for residents only.

Kolesar asked how anybody is to determine whether an ATV user is a resident or not, without physically pulling them over? Burchell said the permit should be clearly visible on the ATV. Kolesar asked what would happen if she was on her ATV and she wanted to stop for lunch at Tacconnelli's. Burchell said parking areas could be established and that visitors and residents could park in the designated areas and walk to downtown businesses.

Erickson pointed out that Kolesar was right -- the ordinance as it is written would not allow a resident or visitor to patronize a local business without violating the law. He again repeated that ATV use on City streets, at this time, is illegal. Kolesar suggested again that the ordinance was not business friendly, and she passed the microphone on to the next speaker.

Burchell pointed out that many of the ideas presented at the hearing were good and valid points, however, the current law makes no provisions for ATV traffic whatsoever. The new ordinance, he said, would be a good first step towards improving the current situation.

Steve Frank said he was unsure if he was in favor of, or against the ordinance. "There seems to be already be some double-talk occurring. Judging from the map that, well, was up there, (The City's laptop went into sleep mode and the map that was previously displaced on the flatscreen was now gone.) the downtown is closed off to ATV traffic if this ordinance was passed. Is that correct?"

Burchell confirmed that Frank was correct.

"Then there's no way that you would be driving to Tacconnelli's to go to eat, no matter what changes were made."

"That is correct!" Burchell said.

"Okay," Frank continued, "Why did we pattern this after Negaunee? Did we look at other communities for what they do? Or did we specifically choose a town that was quote, 'ATV-friendly?'"

Burchell pointed out that several ordinances were used in creating the proposed ordinance. He said bits and pieces of other ordinances were added to Negaunee's ordinance. "We really didn't re-invent the wheel here!" Burchell said.

"Now," Frank continued, "We're here to talk about just this ordinance right now - not 'what if' or what might happen in the future. So we can only comment on what is written in this ordinance. It says there's access to either local, county or State trails. What are the local, county, or State trails in the City limits of Ironwood?"

"The only designated trail that we have -- it's not necessarily a State-designated trail, it's been designated as a City trail -- is Trail #2. It's in the process of trying to be designated as a State trail. It's currently only approved as a City access trail right now, Steve." Burchell responded.

"So it would be unethical for any of us to expect you to vote -- you're voting on this ordinance as it is. So, currently, this ordinance says you can go from your residence to an approved trail. The only approved trail is Trail #2 in the city limits of Ironwood." Frank said.

"That's correct." Burchell confirmed.

"So when we talked about maybe designating other areas as 'off-limits' such as Norrie Park, why do we need to do that?" Frank questioned.

"It would already be implied." Burchell responded.

"Correct!" said Frank. "Would access be allowed at Alfred Wright Boulevard under this ordinance?"

"It's on that map!" Erickson responded. "The map is flexible, so, that's why it's set up that way."

"Currently," Burchell explained, "The ordinance allows for traffic down Alfred Wright Boulevard."

"How?" Frank interjected.

Erickson pointed out that it wasn't currently blacked out on the map. We went on to say that further discussion would need to take place regarding Alfred Wright Boulevard.

"Why would we need to discuss that under this ordinance as it's written?" Frank questioned. "We're here to discuss the ordinance as it's written. It says here that 'an ATV may not be operated on those shoulders specifically designated as non-motorized facilities.' Now, we spent extra money to include bike lanes on Alfred Wright Boulevard. So, again, I'm reading this ordinance as printed and nobody can answer that simple question of whether ATVs are allowed on Alfred Wright Boulevard."

Erickson pointed out that the map and areas on the map would be determined by separate Resolution to the proposed ordinance. Burchell said that people need to decide if they approve the ordinance based on the fact that the current and future Commissions can alter what streets are allowed ATV access at any time, by resolution.

"What I'm saying is," Frank explained,"It appears that nobody is really comfortable with what this ordinance actually says -- whether you're for it or against it. With no reference to the map, the way this ordinance is written, and what everyone is here to comment on today, states that Alfred Wright Boulevard and Greenbush would be CLOSED to ATV traffic because they are designated bike routes. Without any drawing of a map; without a separate resolution to determine what roads are open or closed; this is what the ordinance says. The ordinance also says it's from your residence to the approved trail. And I think it's also very difficult for anybody to make a comment on this if we don't know if other trails are going to be approved in the future. If it's only Trail #2, I can say I think I'm in favor of this ordinance right now. But if we start opening up trails all throughout the City, we've gained absolutely nothing."

This reporter, also being a citizen of Ironwood, addressed the Commission. I said I was opposed to the ordinance for several reasons. (1) First of all, minors who are recklessly violating the law are the are the major problem with ATVs. Most adults prefer to travel on the trails and they have, for the most part, been traveling responsibly on city streets to access the trails. (2) Secondly State law currently forbids ALL ATV use on city streets. I said I would prefer to keep things they way they are. Because State law already forbids use of ATVs on city streets, the IPSD can liberally enforce that law -- targeting only those people who are reckless and seem to have no regard for others. Having a law that forbids ATV use of ANY KIND on city streets allows our public safety officers the flexibility to handle problem violators without having to worry about permits; where someone is coming from; where they are going; how old they are; or whether or not they are a benefit to local business or not. I personally believe that the proposed ordinance does more to tie the hands of public safety than to aid their attempts to control the problem. (3) I feel that the permitting process will be expensive and time-consuming, and do little to eliminate the problem ATV users. (4) I told the Commission that the proposed ordinance muddys the waters. It makes things much more difficult than they need to be. I said the problem seems to be more of an enforcement issue than a legal issue. The IPSD isn't adequately staffed to be everywhere at all times, and they have many issues that are much more important to tend to. I suggested that the City not adopt the ordinance, and I said I would like to let our public safety department to decide what ATV users are responsibly using city streets and which ones are not.

This reporter also stated that the City needs to start focusing on more important issues that trails of all kinds -- motorized and non-motorized. I also stated that I am not thrilled about allowing uninsured ATV operators occupy the same streets and automobile operators that are required to have their vehicles insured.

A Norrie Location resident said she would like to see all Michigan State laws be obeyed. She said she'd like to see helmets worn by ATV operators and that underaged children (under age of 16) not be allowed to operate ATVs without direct supervision of a parent. She said she's seen many very young children driving ATVs with as many as three other kids on a machine. She said they don't obey the traffic signs, speed limits or any safety rules.

She also complained that many violations have taken place involving trespass and abuse of private property; Hiawatha park; as well as racing in the compost site.

Rod Smith asked who the "they" is that people continue to refer to. He said he didn't like the stereotype that all ATV operators are causing the problems. He said that he had to call the police twice. On incident involved an ATV racing down Aspen Street, and the other involved a pick-up truck coming up the high school path. He said he didn't believe any of the violators were present at the meeting. He said he's had a few problems with kids, but he's called public safety but they are gone before an officer can arrive on the scene. Smith continued by saying many fear that they are being the objects of a 'crack-down.' He said people are suspicious. He said that there needs to be a 'rock solid' direction when it comes to a City ordinance, and he said it appears that the City is going off in too many directions. He said Negaunee is Negaunee and Ironwood is Ironwood. He said we need to make up our own minds to establish an ordinance that works for Ironwood.

"Let's just keep it honest." Smith told the Commission.

Brian Dary told the Commission he was in favor of ATV access on city streets. He said he opposed the idea of having to get a permit. He said he was in favor of larger fines for violators. Dary continued by saying that inspections relating to the permit were really the job of law enforcement agencies, just like automobile violations.

Dave Martinson said he was unsure if he was in favor of, or against the proposed ordinance. He pointed to the definintion of a resident, for example. He said if he wanted to go and get a friend to go riding, he would technically be in violation of the ordinance since he didn't go directly from his house to the trail. He said he didn't like that aspect of the ordinance. He said that responsible ATV operators aren't necessarily a hazard or a nuisiance to anybody whether they take the most direct route to the trails or not. He also complained that the ordinance didn't allow ATV users to patronize local businesses. He said based on those issues, he decided that he was against the ordinance as written.

Sandy Beals told the Commission that she has a 15 year-old son, and that there are many kids younger than him riding. She said they buy gas, which she assumed was illegal. She said she doesn' t have a problem with the ordinance as long as people drive safely. She went on to say, regarding young children, "I hope nobody gets killed."

Ross Kolesar said, "I'm for most of your ordinance -- not the speeding part -- I feel that it is unsafe for a speed limit of 15 mph. I don't care for the permit too much but I'm willing to do whatever it takes to gain access to Trail #2 cause I can tell that ATVs are not welcome in Ironwood, and if I can get onto Trail #2 I can get out of Ironwood and go where I'm welcome."

Ironwood Public Safety Department Director Bob Erspamer told the Commission, "I would like to say that it might be partly my fault for the term 'discretion' but there's this attitude that public safety doesn't enforce the ATV laws and that's far from true. We've been enforcing the laws all year -- all summer. Will we catch every ATVer who's violating the law? Absolutely not! We won't catch every drug dealer. We won't catch every speeder in a vehicle. So, I do take somewhat of an exception to put this on public safety. I can't parent people's kids. That's what it sounds like it's coming down to. We're hearing the word 'kids' alot, and it comes down to parenting. I don't like to make excuses, but I would like to share one with you. I don't know if you realize it, but I think there is like 75 miles of roads in the City of Ironwood. On a typical day we have one or two officers on duty. If we are tied up on a drug case, a rape case, or something like that -- which is not that uncommon in the City of Ironwood, believe it or not -- there may not be an officer patroling for five, six, seven hours. So, I hear the comment -- I think it was last meeting -- somebody said, 'Yeah, the police drive by, but they need to spend two or three hours over there!' Well, that would be darn nice. I would love to be able to spend two or three hours in one place, but those days are long gone. The proactive patrol is not there very often. It's more of a reactive. I know it's frustrating when somebody calls me and says, 'A four-wheeler went by my house a couple minutes ago. What are you going to do?' You know, we'll try our best to gather what information we have, but it's usually very little."

"I guess the bottom line is," Erspamer continued, "You can pass all of the ordinances you want. Is the problem going to be solved. No! Not entirely! But we'll be able to put a dent in it, just like other motor vehicles. You're not going to catch of of the stop sign violators. You're not going to catch all of the speeders. So, I just wanted to make those couple of points. Thank-you."

Paulsen told the Commission that the direct route language in the ordinance was an issue that could be problematic. He said most ATVers prefer not to travel on the streets, but the concept of a "direct route" is impractical. He said listing streets that were off-limits to ATVing would be enough language in the ordinance to control the problem. He said most people respect others and the law, so the ordinance doesn't have to be needlessly restrictive.

Burchell mentioned an issue that was brought up at a previous meeting. The issue is, how to you prevent excessive ATV traffic on any given street. He suggested that, without the 'direct route to the trail' concept one neighborhood could be inudated with ATVs while nearby neighborhoods could have virtually no ATV traffic.

Tom Auvinen, owner of Auvinen Service Center, expressed concern that the City will be, by passing the proposed ordinance, putting his business in jeopardy by cutting him off to ATVs. He repeated what Steve Frank pointed out -- that Alfred Wright Boulevard would automatically be closed to ATVs due to the bike route on along the street and that the "Caves" area was city-owned property.

Mayor Burchell said, "I don't know if it is cutting you off, Tom, as it is establishing an ordinance that allows it. Right now, if we just leave it the way it is, people just do whatever they want. So, one of the thoughts was to have a trail -- in fact, in the area you're in right where your shop is -- is an ideal spot to have and east/west trail where all Aurora, Norrie and Newport can hit that and be funneled into the main Trail #2 on either end. And you're not, you don't have people going through the middle of town, but we can't build a trail. That has to be established by a four-wheeler group."

Auvinen said he'd support the Ordinance as long as ATVs could access his business.

Following the discussion with Auvinen, Mayor Burchell asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak for the first time. No new speakers stepped forward. So the mayor allowed people who have already addressed the Commission another opportunity to speak.

Greg Pisani told the Commission that the Ordinance was a touchy situation for both the people and the Commission. He said he understood what the Commission was trying to do with the ordinance. He repeated that the permits were a bad idea. He said it's like, "You can go swimming, but you can't get your feet wet."

Pisani told the Commission that he understood a couple of people went before the Parks and Recreation Committee regading the trails, and "there wasn't a whole lot of satisfaction" from that group as far as support goes.

"And I guess my big question right here now is, how many Commissioners are regular ATV riders?"

Both Commissioners Lucius and Corcoran stated that they were "regular" riders, once Pisani better defined the term "regular" to mean twice a month. Pisani then asked if the two Commissioners trailered their ATVs or if they rode to the trails from their houses. Lucius admitted he drove his ATV to the trails.

"So, you're riding against the law!" Pisani remarked. He went on to explain that his motive for the question was to establish that the Commissioners take the most direct route to the trails much like the majority of ATVers would do. Pisani suggested that the Commission "get with" other riders to establish the ground rules.

Steve Frank asked an interesting question, "How many of you stop at stop signs?" A majority of hands were raised within the audience. "The odds of getting caught if you plowed right through one are very slim right? Right, Bob?"

Bob Erspamer responded, "Very slim!"

"But you all stop." Frank continued. "Because it's sort of the social norm because you think it's important to stop. Right? How many of you stop at a stop sign when you have a kid in the car?" A show of hands revealed that the majority of audience members stopped.

"Because you're setting a good example, right? The real issue -- what's brought all this up -- is all we hear is kids. And I hate that term, but primarily under 18 -- that's the ones we agree are where the problems are at. Is that not where we're at?" Frank told the Commission that the majority of violations he's witnessed both near his house in Norrie and near the Depot downtown, it's been kids under 18 that were in violation. He pointed out that drivers licenses are getting harder and harder to get, because society is insisting on safer drivers.

Frank suggested an "easy compromise." He said he's never seen a 16 or 17 year-old at any of the meetings. He said he doesn't have a problem with any adult driving past his home because they are, more than likely, heading out to the trails. He said the "Caves" is certainly not some kind of dream park designed for ATVs.

He said a very short ordinance could be established that states people under 18 are not permitted on the streets unless accompanied by a parent or guardian.

This reporter asked IPSD Director Bob Erspamer how he felt about the proposed ordinance. I asked if it would make the situation better or worse. "It wouldn't make it any easier to enforce," Erspamer said, "But it the fines would act as a deterrent."

When I asked about the issuing of City permits for ATVs, Erspamer responded with the politically correct answer, "They make the laws and I try to enforce them the best I can."

Mayor Burchell told the audience that he feels the Commission has a better understanding of the matter as a result of the public input. He said changes might be made to the document based on suggestions received, and if the changes are significantly altered, another public hearing would be forthcoming.

Scott Erickson suggested that the ordinance would appear again on the next regularly scheduled meeting agenda. Burchell thanked the people who participated in the Public Hearing, and the Commission took a brief recess before calling the regular meeting to order.