Dayton’s ORV Law Gets Thumbs Down

DAYTON - City officials Monday night voted down the much-debated ordinance proposed in July to legalize the operation of off-road vehicles on some of Dayton's streets.

It was a tough decision for city councilors; that was obvious to all at the council meeting.

Some prefaced their choice with an explanation while others remained silent, but the vote itself made clear the division of opinion on this hot topic.

It was a tie.

Councilors Terry Herrin, Jim Cooper and Charlie Button voted to approve the first reading of the new ordinance. All three councilors on the public safety committee - Kathy Berg, Christine Broughton, and Bill Graham - voted against it.

Mayor Craig George was absent Monday, so councilor Merle Jackson ran the meeting in his stead. In this position as mayor pro tem, Jackson could not vote on the issue. The stalemate between councilors sealed the deal - a tie, Jackson said, means the issue is defeated.

"I hope all the people here in the audience will respect the decisions made here," Jackson said following the vote. "I think the issue has been well, well discussed. We've spent many hours considering the issue, and as you can see it was very, very close."

Reaction from the audience, comprised of 30 or so community members, was mixed. Some thanked the council, breathed a sigh of relief or gave a quiet cheer; others shook their heads, blew out their breath in frustration or walked away from the council meeting speaking words of disbelief at what they saw as the short-sightedness of city leaders.

The proposed ORV law would have allowed opera­tors to drive unlicensed and uninsured off-road vehicles on nearly any street in town as long as drivers quickly made their way to "collector streets," designated in the ordinance, and up into the Eckler Mountain area.

The law stipulated, how­ever, that drivers would have to be over 16 and have a driv­er's

license, and the ORVs in question would have to meet several requirements such as having mirrors, proper lighting, a mufflerand turn signals. Opponents charged that such a law would open the streets of Dayton to undesir­able groups of people, cause noise pollution, endanger residents and other drivers, and push down property values.

Supporters claimed the ordinance would bring more business to town and make recreation easier and more desirable for both residents and tourists.

No members of the au­dience spoke during the public comment period Mon­day night, though council­ors couldn't be sure people had nothing to say. Jackson opened the floor to public comment with specific in­structions that councilors weren't interested in people "rehashing" old issues. The public was free to comment, he said, as long as they had something new and significant to say, wanted to express a change of opinion, and kept all comments to un­der two minutes.

Apparently folk had noth­ing new to say. Councilors Button, Herrin, Cooper and Graham made up for that with their own speeches.

Button said he was di­vided on the issue, seeing the value for some but wishing there were a way to keep older, "garbage," ORVs off city streets.

Cooper, who admitted to owning quads himself, said he'd like to approve the law, but he continued to worry about the city's liability with uninsured drivers on the road. Herrin approved of the ordinance personally, he said, but he suggested that upon approval of the law's first reading (three readings are required to make it on the books) the city somehow seek out the opinion of all residents, to "really find out what the community thinks." City clerk Trina Cole said she'd already spoken with the city's attorney and deter­mined that the issue could not be resolved with an initiative or referendum voted on by residents.

The city council's deci­sion to reject the proposed ordinance followed a recom­mendation of the same by the public safety committee. Chair Bill Graham stated that upon careful reflection of the noise, danger to residents and other drivers, danger to ORV operators themselves, and the city's inability to re­quire that operators carry in­surance, the committee could not endorse the proposed law.

Graham further argued that the idea of restricting ORV traffic to collector streets was a problem be­cause, in reality, the law "in effect would make all the streets in town collector streets," he said. ORV manu­facturers warn against the operation of these vehicles on city streets, he said. And committee members were also not convinced that the understaffed sheriff's de­partment could handle more ordinances to enforce. "The sheriff says there's not enough personnel to enforce all the existing laws without adding another law into the mix," Graham said. However, it was Sheriff Walt Hessler who originally proposed the ordinance this summer. With the issue voted down before its first reading, the topic becomes dead, Jackson said. But Graham, at the last minute, mentioned a new state law concerning the operation of ORVs on small-town streets coming down the hopper - a 2011 ordi­nance he says the safety com­mittee could not get enough information on to help it in its decision for Monday night.

"But in all fairness, this may present a new opportu­nity," he said.