Low-speed vehicle law rejected

Five months after it tabled an initial ordinance governing the use of low-speed vehicles on rural roads in the county, the Fayette County Board rejected a second version.
But at least one board member said that he wants to continue an effort to enact such an ordinance.
The board voted 8-5 on Thursday to reject the ordinance that was submitted by its rules/regulations and sheriff’s committees after those committees held three joint meetings to draft that document. Glenn Gurtner, Joe Kelly, Keith Cole, Chad Austin and Jake Harris voted for the ordinance, and opposing it were Chairman Jeff Beckman, Vice Chairman Darrell Schaal, Wade Wilhour, Troy Pattillo, Dean Bernhardt, Glen “Whitey” Daniels, John Daniels Jr. and Jean Finley.
The measure failed after considerable discussion on the issue, with some members of the sizeable audience offering their opinions.
After a motion was made to pass the ordinance, Beckman opened the discussion on the proposed ordinance, which would govern such vehicles as all-terrain vehicles (including side-by-sides), utility vehicles and golf carts.
“This thing has been a burr under everybody’s saddle since day one,” Beckman said. “I still see things that I question personally, and others do, too.”
Beckman said the ordinance wasn’t ready for passage.
“It’s not complete, No. 1, and that’s very key,” Beckman said, explaining that he believed the proper action at the meeting was for the board to simply decide whether it wants to continue creating what it believes is an appropriate ordinance.
Schaal, chairman of the rules and regulations committee, disagreed with Beckman’s assessment of the proposed ordinance.
“I do think this ordinance is complete,” Schaal said.
“There are details we’ve got to get worked out before we enact it. Is it perfect? Probably not. Is it an ordinance that we think is workable? Yes,” he said.
“Before we do more work on it, we want to know from the board if this is going to go; if not, we don’t need to hammer out the small details,” Schaal said.
Harris spoke for the passage of the ordinance. “I don’t think we’re going to make everybody happy.
“Those things are going to be on the roadway, so if the county can’t enact an ordinance to regulate these machines, then I don’t see why,” Harris said.
“If it has to be amended later on down the road, let’s amend it,” he said.
Pattillo added, “We may not know what amendments need to be made until it’s enacted for a while.”
John Daniels Jr. said, “I think it’s going to cause more headaches than it’s worth.”
Glen “Whitey” Daniels agreed with Beckman that the ordinance “is not complete,” and added, “I feel it should go to the public to be voted on.”
Harris followed with a comment that showed he wants to see the issue through to passage. “I’m not a quitter – I’m going to do whatever it takes.”
Sheriff Chris Smith told Beckman, “I’m not hearing the negatives, I’m hearing the positives. I’ve heard 99 percent positive.”
After Smith said that those who initially expressed negative sentiments really just had misunderstandings about the ordinance.
As Schaal said that that’s because the document had not been released for public inspection, Beckman said that he wanted to see this, and all other items that are on the county board agenda, to be available to the media and general public as soon as they are placed on the agenda.
“It behooves us to have our legal counsel (state’s attorney’s office), once it’s a hard copy and going to be on the agenda, it needs to be released (for public inspection),” Beckman said.
“If we need to give permission to do (that), I think we need to do it,” he said.
State’s Attorney Joshua Morrison told board members that his office does not have the authority to release such documents, claiming “attorney-client privilege,” but said that board members can.
Morrison’s assistant, Brenda Duke, told Beckman, “But if you choose to waive that, as a board, for us to release it from our office, it would have to be in writing.”
Gurtner provided The Leader-Union with a copy of the proposed ordinance on Wednesday, and Harris made copies available for other media after the vote was taken.
Wilhour said that while he is “all for the low-speed vehicles on the roads, I think it is another form of taxation.
“The only problem I have is with the ($40 permit) fee,” he said. “Why do we have to pay a yearly inspection fee.”
Schaal said the reason behind the annual inspections is, “These are off-road vehicles. If we are going to put them on the road, we need to make sure they’re safe.”
Wilhour contended that the county doesn’t need such a law. “All we have to do is follow the Illinois state law.
“I think we are over-regulated and this is another regulation,” he said. “The law’s already there.”
A member of the audience, John Cearlock, also spoke out against the ordinance.
Cearlock asked how the county could approve such an ordinance that includes township roads when the townships haven’t approved such a law.
“The township maintains those township roads and holds its power over those roads,” Cearlock said.
Also, he said, nothing is being done about all-terrain vehicles being used illegally on roads now.
“I see 30 to 50 of those go by my house on a weekend day,” Cearlock said. And, he said, “I live in an area where there have been six serious accidents on the Zent Drive curve this year.
Cearlock estimated that “5 percent of traffic on those roads is ATV’s, and I would estimate that 2-5 percent of that 5 percent are underaged, unlicensed drivers.
“You are going to open a can of worms here that you’ll wish you hadn’t opened up.
“What you’re going to do is to throw your hands up and say ‘We  can’t enforce it,’ and collect a little tax because of it,” Cearlock said.
“It’s against the law to have these things on the road in the state of Illinois,” he said.
Beckman ended the discussion on the issue by saying, “This is the stuff that comes up. This could drag out for hours.”
The proper venue for such discussions, he said, is a committee meeting.