Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the ATV Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bracken County schedules special meeting to hear public on proposed ATV ordinance
Summary
Bracken County Fiscal Court set a special called meeting for Aug. 11 to take public comment on a proposed ordinance to opt in for special-purpose vehicles/ATVs on county roads after magistrates and the sheriff raised questions about reciprocity, insurance and the statute’s vague agriculture exemption.
Bracken County Fiscal Court on the record scheduled a special called meeting for 5:30 p.m. Monday, Aug. 11, in the courthouse courtroom to take public comment and conduct a first reading of a proposed ordinance allowing special-purpose vehicles and ATVs on county roads.
The request to hold a single-issue meeting came after an extended discussion during which Sheriff Bobby and several magistrates said the state statute and the draft ordinance leave key issues unclear, including reciprocity for vehicles registered in other states, insurance coverage, and what qualifies for the farming/agriculture exemption. "Reciprocity ... allows them to operate their vehicles in our state," the sheriff said, warning that counties that opt out would still see out‑of‑state users on local roads because those vehicles are legally registered in their home states.
The court’s presiding official said the ordinance would be on the special meeting agenda as a first reading and that the county would publish a notice in the Burke County News and otherwise invite public input. Magistrates who opposed moving forward without broader public education said they want at least one forum to explain legal effects and enforcement implications; one magistrate said an unofficial Facebook poll showed substantial local opposition.
Discussion addressed several recurring concerns: whether enforcement would create case-law conflicts when a vehicle is legally registered in another state; whether the 20‑mile limitation in the draft is enforceable or poorly defined; and whether farmers’ automatic exemption under state law can be meaningfully refined at the county level. "It's very unclear," one magistrate said of the 20‑mile and agricultural provisions, and others urged that the court consider adding proof-of-insurance or registration requirements if it adopts any local ordinance.
The special meeting will be limited to the ordinance; staff will attempt to secure the county attorney to attend and will prepare sample ordinance language and public notices. The court encouraged attendance and said the session would permit public testimony before any first-reading vote.
The fiscal court did not adopt the ordinance at this meeting; scheduling the special called meeting was the substantive next step.
