By GARLAND KENNEDY
Sentinel Staff Writer
An ordinance that would limit commercial uses of all-purpose vehicles on local roadways passed on first reading at Tuesday’s regular Assembly meeting.
Co-sponsored by Kevin Knox and Kevin Mosher, the measure would modify the recently passed ordinance that allows APVs on public roadways.
“The purpose of this ordinance is to prohibit certain commercial uses of (APVs) on public roadways within the city and borough of Sitka,” the measure reads. “Commercial uses prohibited are ones that involve hire of the APV and are intended to include, but not be limited to, renting/leasing for driving, tours, passenger carrying, load carrying, freight carrying, pushing, and towing.”
Knox said the intent of the ordinance was to restrict the hire of an ATV, but not restrict the commercial use of someone using it in town.
“I have constituents, people who have talked to me about their concerns about having large ATV tours or just large numbers of rented ATVs riding around town rather than those people being on single buses coming into the downtown,” he said. “Those I’ve talked to are concerned about this. They don’t want to see large numbers of out-of-town people using a product like this on our roads.”
Mosher said he worries about inexperienced drivers in town.
“It’s my biggest intention that we do not rent out ATVs or APVs that a tourist will drive themselves,” he said. “I don’t think that is safe, I think that is very dangerous… Someone who has an APV could drive it and still have tourists in the back. That’s the way I read this, that’s the way I interpret this and that was my intention. I just don’t want inexperienced drivers driving these around town. I think it’s dangerous.”
Sitka’s APV ordinance allows the machines to be operated on local roads and streets on condition that the riders have a drivers license and insurance, wear a helmet, and have their vehicle pass a city inspection for lights, brakes and other safety equipment.
Assembly member Rebecca Himschoot said she agreed with the ATV rental restriction, but was willing to revisit the issue in the future.
“We’ve already added we don’t know how many tourists, how many buses. This summer is going to be different from anything we’ve ever had, we think,” Himschoot said. “Let’s get through the summer. Let’s see how adding legal ATVs to the roads looks, and then I’m willing to come back to this and potentially consider changing it.”
Crystal Duncan supported the idea of off-road tours on ATVs, but opposed tourists driving the vehicles on paved roads.
“I do feel comfortable allowing tourists who opt in to have an off-road experience but not an on-road experience… So with ATVs I have great concerns, no question about that. APVs, they have built-in safety mechanisms that separate them,” she said.
Much of the Assembly’s discussion on the topic hinged on the wide variety of vehicles involved. The distinction between an all-terrain vehicle and a utility terrain vehicle was brought up by Thor Christianson. The ordinance’s lack of definitions for differing types of vehicles concerned him.
“My real problem with (the ordinance) is that it doesn’t differentiate between an ATV, also known as a four-wheeler cycle type, and a UTV, a ‘mule’… Those are wildly different vehicles. I think if you can pass a driver’s test you can drive a mule… They’re easy to drive. The four-wheeler type, the ATV, that’s a different beast. I think that would be much more likely to hit somebody. You don’t hit the brakes with your foot like you do with a car or UTV. So as it’s written I can’t support it,” Christianson said.
Like others at the table, Dave Miller drew a distinction between ATVs and UTVs, also known as side-by-sides.
“I’m against ATVs and for the side-by-sides… I think they are a fairly safe vehicle on the roads,” Miller said.
Mayor Steven Eisenbeisz hoped the Assembly would reach an agreement that distinguishes between vehicle types.
“I’m not in support of the ordinance as originally written and I’m not in support of the ordinance as written currently,” the mayor said. “Some interesting themes have come out tonight. Number one, multiple members, including myself, would be OK with UTV rentals but are uneasy about ATV rentals. I really hope that we can hone in on that to allow while disallowing. I hope that’s a compromise this Assembly can make.”
After the initial Assembly discussion on the motion, Christianson made a motion to amend the ordinance to change references to APVs to ATVs.
In response, Eisenbeisz said he was bothered that the ordinance doesn’t have definitions of the different vehicle types.
“If this goes forward, we’re going to have to come into another section defining ATV, so it would kind of end up in another weird spot where I’m not really sure that we’re voting on,” he said.
The motion to amend the ordinance failed 3-4. Eisenbeisz, Christianson and Duncan voted in favor. Knox, Mosher, Miller and Himschoot opposed the amendment.
Following the failure of the amendment the Assembly voted 4-3 to approve the ordinance on first reading. Himschoot, Knox, Duncan and Mosher voted in favor. Eisenbeisz, Miller and Christianson were opposed.
Prior to the Assembly discussion and vote, a handful of Sitkans testified on the rental issue.
“I’m in favor of UTVs – not ATVs – being used commercially,” Mike Finn said. He asked the Assembly to delegate the issue to the Police and Fire Commission for discussion.
Logan Kluting told the Assembly the ordinance will hamper local business.
“By putting this ordinance through right now you’re blocking a lot of local businesses that could really benefit from being able to rent ATVs, not to mention the city could make money off of it if the rentals started happening,” Kluting testified.
The ordinance will return for a vote on second and final reading at the Assembly’s next regular meeting April 12.
