Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Atv Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public works committee approves ordinance amendment listing city streets for ATV and UTV use
Summary
The Wisconsin Rapids Public Works Committee approved an ordinance amendment to list specific city streets where all‑terrain and utility terrain vehicles may operate, with the motion passing 3–0 after public comment opposing the change and questions about cross‑jurisdictional enforcement for riders aged 12–16.
The Public Works Committee voted to approve a draft amendment specifying city streets to be opened to ATV and UTV traffic, approving the motion 3–0.
Unidentified Speaker 1, the committee chair for the meeting, said the existing ordinance already permits ATV and UTV use and sets safety and compliance requirements: “The existing ordinance requires a valid driver's license,” and includes state‑level helmet, lighting and insurance rules and enforcement by any law enforcement officer. He told the committee this referral represented the fourth time the council had reviewed and narrowed the map of streets considered for opening.
Joe, a city staff member, summarized work from the public works committee and engineering: staff updated the packet maps to identify candidate city streets, highlighted segments that remain questionable, and noted some town properties abut city streets that may affect decisions. Staff listed specific candidate streets including Peterson Avenue, portions of 9th/10th/11th/12th streets, Lake Avenue, Pepper Avenue and a section near Merwin Circle before members agreed to remove the Merwin Circle segment to reduce confusion and sign costs.
A public commenter identified as Tom urged the committee to vote no, arguing surrounding communities should address their own access requests and noting a prior referendum had opposed opening access. “I hope you vote no,” Tom said during public comment.
Committee members raised enforcement and fairness concerns where neighboring municipal rules differ. One committee member asked about riders ages 12–16 and whether users would know when local rules differ; the member observed that under some neighboring ordinances younger riders are allowed without a license while the city’s amendment would require licensing on city streets.
The motion to approve the draft ordinance, moved by Palmquist and seconded by Austin, was restated before the vote and carried with a recorded tally of 3–0. Committee discussion and public comment will be included in the record as staff finalizes signage and public notification plans.
The committee did not adopt additional enforcement language at this meeting; staff said they will clarify enforcement practices and coordinate cross‑jurisdictional communication before ordinance implementation.
