Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Marquette County adopts animal-drawn vehicles ordinance after debate over signage and enforcement
Summary
Marquette County supervisors adopted Resolution 12-2026 to add an animal-drawn vehicles ordinance to the county code, adopting state lighting requirements and an educational enforcement phase; an on-the-floor amendment to require extra signage and rubber wheel rules failed.
Marquette County supervisors voted 16–yes, one abstention to adopt Resolution 12-2026, an ordinance adding ‘Animal Drawn Vehicles’ to the county code and implementing the minimum lighting and identification requirements drawn from state law.
The ordinance, introduced by the Judicial and Public Safety Committee, responds to repeated complaints about horse-drawn buggies traveling without lights or slow-moving-vehicle signs. During debate, Supervisor John Bennett proposed an amendment to require slow-moving-vehicle signage behind trailers and any items pulled by a horse — and to require rubber coverings on steel wheels in summer to reduce pavement damage. "I have a hard time believing that they're going to go along," Bennett said of compliance concerns, and he pressed for clearer signage and wheel protections.
Corporation Counsel advised the board against making substantive drafting changes on the floor. Counsel described the ordinance as "essentially the bare minimum under the state statute" intended as a safety measure and recommended approving the drafted ordinance and returning to committee for any additional language. Counsel also noted the county could pursue later amendments through the committee process and public hearing rather than ad hoc revisions during the meeting.
Supporters said adoption would provide the sheriff's office with an enforcement mechanism and start with an educational period. "It is a safety issue," a member of the Judicial and Public Safety Committee said, adding that deputies and local bishops had been consulted. Several supervisors urged immediate adoption to reduce the risk of nighttime accidents, while others said the proposed amendment on rubber wheels may be impractical and better suited for committee study.
The board first voted on Bennett's proposed amendment by voice and the chair declared the amendment failed. The original ordinance was then approved, with members noting the ordinance references lighting, reflectivity, and slow-moving-vehicle signs under the cited state statute.
Next steps: the ordinance was adopted as presented and will be available in the county code; members said additional changes could be considered after committee review and further drafting.
