Loyal council upholds valid license requirement for ATV ordinance
By Valorie Brecht After some discussion, the Loyal Common Council decided to uphold a recently-added amendment to the city’s ATV/UTV ordinance that requires riders to possess a valid driver’s license in order to operate an ATV or UTV in the city of Loyal.
The city passed an amendment to Ordinance 8-3-13 back in September. It states that a person may not operate an ATV or UTV on a city of Loyal street, alley or public way if said person “is under a current driver’s license suspension, revocation, or cancellation for any reason, or … is required to have by Court Order an ignition Interlocking Device on motorized vehicles.”
The ordinance also specifies that “a parent or guardian must accompany a person which is under the age of 18 and who possesses a probationary license in order to operate all (sic) all-terrain vehicle upon a public street, alley, or public way in the City of Loyal.”
The amendment was originally enacted for safety reasons, to prevent people who had their license taken away due to drunk driving or people who never got a driver’s license from being able to operate an ATV or UTV in Loyal.
The topic was revisited after citizens attended the Loyal Common Council meeting Jan. 16 and voiced their disapproval of the ordinance amendment. One of the citizens was a local business owner and was concerned with how the amendment would affect business at local bars and other establishments. She felt the ordinance would give the negative perception that the city was targeting ATV and UTV drivers, and they would avoid stopping in Loyal because of it.
The citizens also questioned the legality of the ordinance, because state law does not require a valid driver’s license to operate an ATV or UTV, only a safety certificate — for those born in 1988 or after. However, it was explained that local law can be more restrictive than state law; it just can’t be less restrictive. So, Loyal’s license requirement is legal. After an extended discussion, the issue was referred back to the police committee, which met on Feb. 7, and then referred back to the council on Feb. 20.
To provide some context to the council’s discussion, city deputy clerk Viki Pieper did about a hour of research and found 25 Wisconsin municipalities that require a
Please see ATVs, page 7 ATVs,
from p. 1
driver’s license in order to operate an ATV or UTV in their municipality. There are more than 25, but that was the number she found in her preliminary search, looking at municipalities with ordinances readily available online. Nearby municipalities requiring a valid driver’s license include Greenwood, Abbotsford, Colby, Marshfield, Owen, Stratford and Thorp.
“Just in the little bit I was looking, I found several that were more restrictive than ours also — for example, you may not operate between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m.,” said Pieper.
“I still have concerns about the public perception — you know, the Kwik Trips, the bar and grills and the root beer stand,” said city council member Curtiss Lindner.
“But it’s a privilege to have that license too, and if you lose that privilege, so be it. If you look at Black River Falls, they’re probably one of the bigger places for ATVs and UTVs, and they have it,” responded fellow council member Dave Geier.
The mayor opened the floor to local business owners Pete Fitzl and Dana and Vinnie Putrus, to give their opinion.
“I think our main purpose was just to show you guys from our point of view, we’re looking at it from the business side of it. As business owners, we’d like to see it reversed. It’s the perception,” said Dana Putrus.
“Well, if it’s a safety issue, is this going to be like farmers with their kids driving their tractors through town and Mennonites’ tractors running through town? And even silage trucks. I’m required to have my truck inspected, and I’m supposed to be licensed and take drug tests and everything else; you don’t have to have a license for those. But, they all go through our town,” said Fitzl.
“But that’s a different ballgame there, Pete,” replied Geier.
“If it’s a safety issue on an ATV, why isn’t it on other vehicles?” asked Fitzl.
“But I think what they’re targeting, Pete, here, is the people that their license is suspended. They lost their license due to drunk driving,” said Geier. “That’s what we’re looking at it, is people who lost their privilege to drive, whether drug related or drunk driving or something like that.”
“But the same people would be allowed to drive farm equipment and silage trucks and…” began Fitzl.
“And we brought that up at the police committee meeting, that most people go and get an occupational; they’re going to be fully licensed to be able to drive anyways, so I don’t think there’s going to be any violations. It’s just the perception for our businesses,” said Dana Putrus. “And we asked at the police committee; I said I never heard of an ATV, UTV accident or anything going on in the city and which I think we would have heard about it, if it’s a safety issue.”
“And I’m not saying about the accidents. I don’t know. I’m sure there’s plenty of rollovers where they picked them up and away they went, probably,” said Police Chief Matt Kubista.
He asked council member Matt Prein, who also serves with the sheriff’s department, if he had numbers for the amount of ATV or UTV infractions from a county perspective. Prein said it was hard to say because not all incidents were reportable, unless there was an injury. Lindner, who also works for the county, added that the amount of citations depended on how much coverage they were able to get on areas with heavy ATV traffic, depending if the county was short-staffed or not.
“And that’s my point is, statistics can be swayed one way or another with that. I can sit there and pick up enforcement right here on Main Street if I want to. Or I can do it down at the stop signs; I can move it around. But he’s correct; with accidents they have to be an injury to be reportable,” Kubista said.
Kubista reiterated his point from other meetings, that safety was his main concern. He said to keep in mind that people don’t lose their license overnight; it’s typically a pattern of behavior. A person has to accumulate 12 or more demerit points within a 12-month period to lose their license. As an example, speeding 1-10 mph over the limit is worth 3 points, so a person would have to do that four times in a year to lose their license. Speeding 11-19 mph over the limit is worth 4 demerit points and 20 mph or more over is worth 6 points, so even with those, there would need to be multiple offenses for a person to lose their license; it would not be for just one citation.
“These are habitual traffic offenders or OWI (operating while intoxicated) related or refusal to take a test if there’s probable cause they’ve been under the influence of alcohol. They’re serious offenses. And (if this ordinance is revoked), these are people who on ATVs and UTVs will be driving in our community right along with all our other cars and traffic. Why would we want (that)?” said Kubista.
Lindner said the city would have to make sure it was not giving the impression it was profiling ATV and UTV users. He made a motion to rescind the ordinance amendment, to be reviewed twice a year. Council member Kris Schultz seconded that motion.
Council member Greg Brock said he talked to a lot of people about the issue.
“Most people you talk to, they don’t even know that you need a safety (certificate) to drive it. So most of the public is not educated on this at all. So then when they find out that we put an ordinance in saying you have to have a license, they’re like, ‘Well, that’s a no-brainer that you’d have to have a license. It’s just like a car going down the road; why would you not need a license?’ So if you were to poll the public, I think there’d be more people saying, ‘Leave it in place,’” said Brock.
“I’d agree. Everybody I talked to said the same thing. The majority of the people were like, ‘Why wouldn’t you need your license to drive them?’” said council member Jenae Weyer.
“But those same people, when I explain to them that we’re trying not to do what happened on the other side of Neillsville, and I’m not naming names, that we don’t want to keep people out of our town, they’re like, ‘Well, obviously we don’t.’ So then you explain that to them and they’re like, ‘We don’t want that either.’ So they’re kind of in that in-between stage,” said Brock.
Englebretson called for a vote on Lindner’s motion. The motion failed, 2-6, with Lindner and Schultz voting for it and the rest against.
Fitzl also brought up the point of snowmobiles and why the ordinance didn’t address them. Kubista said snowmobile users were a different story, because they can only go directly to the business they are using — such as a gas station — and back to the trail.
Council member Tom Bobrofsky, who had been quiet up to that point, asked the business owners if they had heard people say they would not come to Loyal because of this new ordinance amendment.
“You just passed this in September and there’s not a lot of riding going on now,” said Dana Putrus.
“Yeah, you kinda did this behind everybody’s back,” said Fitzl.
“No, we never did it behind anybody’s back. It’s just things come up and we move along on them. I mean really we just try to make things happen. We’re not trying to go behind people’s backs at all,” said Weyer.
Geier also said that meetings are always held on the third Tuesday, meeting agendas are always publicly posted and people are welcome to attend and make their voice heard.
Englebretson said the city would just need to do a better job of informing the public about the ordinance and making sure they understand what the rules are.
“We’ll have to work on that — making people understand that this was a safety concern. We’re not banning them,” said Englebretson.
With the conversation seemingly wrapped up, the council moved on to its next order of business. Because the motion to rescind the ordinance failed, the ordinance stands as passed in September.
Copies of the Wisconsin ATV/UTV Law Handbook are available at city hall and at dnr.wi.gov/topic/atv.
