ATV Ordinance No Revision Public Comments & CWC Response Date Name Comments Staff Comments #

Transcription

1 10/2/15 Jeff Norlin I have read and agree with the new proposed ATV ordinance. These Thank you for your comments. Providing designated, managed routes 1 ATV/UTV vehicles and the way they are being ridden is changing rapidly. for ATV use is consistent with the goals of the County s We as a county need to keep up with these changes. Keep up the good work Comprehensive Plan to provide diverse recreational opportunities that county land dept. are accessible to people of all ages and abilities while preserving the County s high quality natural areas and open space. 10/4/15 David Traxler My family of 5 moved to brainerd for a more free ATV friendly environment. Don t make us move again. Every single ATV rider we have encountered here are very respectful of the land. 10/6/15 Chief Bob Hartman As the Police Chief for the City of Crosslake, I am in favor of the proposed changes to the ATV Ordinance #0601, as it relates to County Road /6/15 Dave Hauser This is to comment on the proposed changes, allowing class 2 side x sides on Cty 66, it is a great idea. Also I would hope there will be no restrictions of class 1 usage in cty road ditches. Us old guys like to ride around and certainly are not trouble makers. Motorized recreation is good for the area. Last weekend we rode the Miller-Black Bear trails, what a fantastic job you did with that area!!!! Thank you for your comments. According to the Crow Wing County Sherriff s Office, less than one-tenth of one-percent of all incidence reports in the last two years were related to unlawful ATV operation. Thank you for your comments. Maintaining positive relationships with local law enforcement agencies is key to establishing safe places to ride ATVs. Providing designated, managed routes for ATV use is consistent with the goals of the County s Comprehensive Plan to provide diverse recreational opportunities that are accessible to people of all ages and abilities while preserving the County s high quality natural areas and open space. The proposed revisions to Ordinance No is the result of a request made by the City of Crosslake. At the August 26, 2013 City of Crosslake Council meeting, the Council reviewed a request by the City of Crosslake. By unanimous motion, at its 8/26/2013 Council meeting, the City of Crosslake formally asked Crow Wing County to review the ordinance and consider modifying to allow Class 2 ATV operation on County Road 66. Additionally, at the 7/13/2015 Council meeting, a unanimous motion was passed to authorize the mayor of Crosslake to sign a letter to the Crow Wing County Board requesting that the County change their ordinance to restrict class 2 ATV use in ditches along County Road 66. The proposed changes to Ordinance No is consistent with Minnesota Statute language concerning the use of Class 2 ATVs within

2 public road right-of-ways (MS Subd. 1 c(1)). No ditch or outside bank use (where they exist) will be allowed. 10/6/15 Arlen Stensby I am very much in favor of the change allowing class 2 ATVs use of County Thank you for your comments. The proposed changes to Ordinance No. 5 Road 66 road surfaces and shoulders. I am a resident of Crosslake, and live 0601 is consistent with Minnesota Statute language concerning the use on County Road 66 which is the road affected by the proposed change. of Class 2 ATVs within public road right-of-ways (MS Subd. 1 Driving in the ditches, which caused erosion problems on my driveway c(1)). No ditch or outside bank use (where they exist) will be allowed. approaches prior to passage of the current restriction, will still be prohibited. So I think it s a win-win issue for County Road 66 residents and ATV users as well. 10/7/15 Ben Heintz I would like to offer my support of the proposed ordinance revisions to Crow Thank you for your comments. See staff comments from #1, above. 6 Wing County Ordinance No As a seasonal resident and land owner in Crosslake, Minnesota, I feel the proposed changes would enhance the outdoor opportunities afforded to residents and visitors to this beautiful area. 10/8/15 Joel Carlson I live in the Fifty Lakes area and support this ordinance change. I would like to see this open to everyone. Class 1 ATVs should also be allowed. Other counties are opening up there roads for all ATV use. I would like to see that done in this area also. 10/8/15 Russell Heittola I would like to voice my support for the ordinance revision No The closing of access routes in and out of our towns is never a good thing, it only hurts our local economy. One thing I would like to see changed in this ordinance is to open this route to class 1 s also. I see a lot of confusion for the local public. If there is an issue with being in the ditch then please change it to say they must stay on the road surface, not just exclude a group from using this route. 10/12/15 Dale Carry Please change amended Exemptions in Section #1 to Both Class 1 and 2, not just class 2 operated on the right shoulder or the extreme right-hand side of the road. Both Classes of ATV s 1 and 2 pay gas taxes, so should be able to ride on the shoulder of the road. 10/13/15 Robert Skomra Recently I became aware of Crow Wings County s proposed changes to Ordinance No Being a frequent visitor to the County I was disheartened by Section 4.1 of the Ordinance that proposes that only Class 2 2 Thank you for your comments. The proposed revisions to Ordinance 7 No is the result of a request made by the City of Crosslake. At the August 26, 2013 City of Crosslake Council meeting, the Council reviewed a request by the City of Crosslake. By unanimous motion, at its 8/26/2013 Council meeting, the City of Crosslake formally asked Crow Wing County to review the ordinance and consider modifying to allow Class 2 ATV operation on County Road 66. Additionally, at the 7/13/2015 Council meeting, a unanimous motion was passed to authorize the mayor of Crosslake to sign a letter to the Crow Wing County Board requesting that the County change their ordinance to restrict class 2 ATV use in ditches along County Road 66. The proposed changes to this ordinance does not include use by Class 1 ATVs. Thank you for your comments. See staff comments from #7, above. 8 Thank you for your comments. See staff comments from #7, above. 9 Thank you for your comments. See staff comments from #7, above. 10

3 ATVs will be permitted to drive on the shoulder of Highway 66 from Highway 3 in Crosslake to Highway 1 in the City of Manhattan Beach. I would recommend to the County Board that the proposed Ordinance be amended to allow both Class 1 and Class 2 ATVs to drive on the shoulder of the above mentioned route. The current proposed Ordinance would adversely affect the majority of registered ATV owners in Crow Wing County and its surrounding counties. According to DNR reports, last computed in 2014, there are 7,677 registered Class 1 and 2 ATVs in Crow Wing County, the DNR does not break down the numbers to Class 1 and 2 but admits that the large majority are Class 1. From the same report, Crow Wings surrounding counties (Aitkin, Cass, Hubbard and Mille Lacs have in excess of 13,000 registered ATVs. This does not take in to consideration visitors like myself who lives out of the immediate area. Let us hope the Crow Wing County Board does what is best for its residents and visitors. 10/16/15 Michael Best As individuals and organizations dedicated to reducing deaths and injuries Thank you for your comments. A key component to regulating ATV use 11 caused by all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), we are writing to urge you not to within road rights-of-way is safety. In Crow Wing County, this is propose or support any revisions to Crow Wing County Ordinance No partially accomplished through proper enforcement. Officers with the that would increase ATV access to county roads. We also write to inform Sherriff s Office have full authority to enforce state statutes and county you of the dangers of allowing ATVs on public roads. ordinances related to off-highway vehicles. We urge you to oppose any proposal that that would expand ATV use on public roads because an expansion of ATV access to roads is contrary to public safety and puts the operator and others at risk of severe injury or death. ATVs should not be driven on public roads because driving ATVs on public roads is more dangerous than operating them off-road, ATVs are not designed for roadway use, and ATV manufacturers have policy statements strongly urging consumers not to operate their vehicles on public roads. ATV roadway crashes account for over 60% of deaths and over 30% of serious injuries. Roadway crashes are more likely to involve multiple fatalities, carrying passengers, collisions and head injuries. Victims in roadway crashes were less likely to be wearing protective gear such as helmets and were more likely to be carrying passengers. Such enforcement examples include: 1.) Illegal operation on non-frozen public waters, lands posted closed with gates or signs, and lands designated as non-motorized (MS Subd. 1); 2.) Disturbance of wetlands (MS ); 3.) Registration required for ATVs (MS ); 4.) Operation on roads and rights-of-way (MS , Subd. 1); 5.) Prohibitions on youthful operators (MS , subd. 1) and training requirements (MS , Subd. 5); 6.) Driving while impaired (MS 169A.20) and the Open Bottle Law (MS 169A.35); 7.) Reckless or careless driving (MS ). Trespassing, reckless driving, and all other crimes should be reported immediately to the Crow Wing County Sherriff s Office so those who break such laws can be held responsible for their actions. Between January 1, 2014 and November 13, 2015, the Crow Wing County Sherriff s Office created 42,572 service calls. Of those, 62 3

4 (approximately one-tenth of one percent of all services) were related to a potentially unlawful ATV incidence. Of those 62 calls: - 51 involved an ATV in operation. - 1 was related to alcohol use. - 7 were personal injury crashes. According to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Enforcement s Incident Report summary, there were approximately 72 accidents per-100,000 registered ATVs (0.07%) in This compares to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Office of Traffic Safety s information indicating 1,507 accidents per- 100,000 motor vehicles (1.5%) in The data shows that in 2010, the rate of accidents for highway licensed vehicles was 21 times higher than for ATVs. Additionally, all other Crow Wing County jurisdiction roadways (county roads) are currently open to Class 2 ATVs. This includes two segments on the Crow Wing County Southern Loop ATV trail which has several portions of the trail where ATVs ride on the roadway surfaces in places where ditch or outside bank travel is physically inaccessible. Many county roads have shoulder widths that are narrower and have highway vehicle traffic counts that are higher than County Road #66 as per-data obtained from the Crow Wing County Highway Department. According to the Sherriff s Office incidence report data, there have been no more than three reported and verified ATV related accidents within county road right-of-ways in the past two years. Most importantly, ATVs are not designed to operate on paved or public roads. An ATV s narrow wheelbase and high clearance are designed for riding in pastures, fields and wooded areas. The high center of gravity increases the risk of rollovers, particularly at roadway speeds. In addition, ATV s knobby, low-pressure tires allow for operation on a variety of surfaces, but they do not grip roadway surfaces well (paved or unpaved). As tire-surface interaction deteriorates with increasing speed, the operator can lose control of the vehicle, endangering not only the ATV rider but also occupants of other vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Also, many ATVs Concerning the use of ATVs on paved or other public road rights-ofway, the State of Minnesota has statutorily provided that: A county, city, or town, acting through its governing body, may by ordinance allow a person to operate an all-terrain vehicle on a public road or street under its jurisdiction to access businesses and residences and to make trail connections (MS , Subd. 1k). And it provides that Class 2 ATVs are to be operated on the right shoulder or the extreme righthand side of the road (MS Subd. 1 c(1)) regardless of any manufacturer s or organization s policy concerning its use on roadways. 1 Minnesota DNR Division of Enforcement. All-terrain vehicle certification, registration, & accident statistics 1982-present. Accessed online on 2 Minnesota Department of Public Safety. Minnesota Motor Vehicle Crash Facts: Minnesota Traffic Crashes in P. 9, table Accessed online on 4

5 lack a rear differential which can compound on-road handling challenges. The lack of a rear differential results in the wheels on both the inside and outside of a turn rotating at the same speed even though the wheels on the outside of the turn cover more distance. This design problem is mitigated on off-road surfaces like dirt and grass but makes the machine much more difficult to control on-road. The Specialty Vehicle Institute of America (SVIA), a not-for-profit association representing ATV manufacturers and dealers, has a strong policy statement against the use of ATVs on public roads. A training manual for ATV riders from the ATV Safety Institute, a division of SVIA, states: Remember, ATVs are intended for off-road use only. Never operate an ATV on public roads, and always avoid paved surfaces. ATVs are not designed for use on public roads and other motorists may not see you. ATVs are not designed to be used on paved surfaces because pavement may seriously affect handling and control. [A] Further, the SVIA makes clear that: ATVs are designed, manufactured and sold for off-road use only. On-road vehicles must be manufactured and certified to comply with U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). These safety standards consist of extensive and detailed compliance requirements. Since ATVs are not intended to be used on-road, they are not designed, equipped or tested to meet such standards. [B] This statement shows that the manufactures of these vehicles, those who know the vehicles better than anyone, are clear that they should not be operated on public roads. In addition, the mandatory rules for ATVs require that all ATVs have a label indicating that ATVs should not be operated on paved roads or on public roads. Minnesota is one of 34 states that allow counties and other local governments to decide which roads are available for ATV use. As of 11/16/2015, 18 Minnesota counties have a process, policy, or ordinance in place that allows for the current operation of ATVs on roadway surfaces including three that have been approved in the past two years. They include: Aitkin 3, Beltrami, Blue Earth, Cass 4, Chippewa, Clearwater, Cook, Goodhue, Itasca, Koochiching, Lake, Marshall, Pennington, Pine, Polk, Roseau, St. Louis 5, and Wabasha County. Since being approved, none have been rescinded. [A] Available on the web at on page 7. [B] Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Position in Opposition to On-Road Operation of ATVs, available on the web at 3 Policy = Corridor Access Trail Permit allows use on County roadway surfaces. 4 Process = A Grant-In-Aid ATV Trail on the roadway surface of a county road in/near Outing, Minnesota. Surface material is bituminous or gravel. 5 Ordinance = As of 11/16/2015 it is in a pilot phase, with the expectation of full-ordinance passage in April,

6 Consumer Federation of America ( and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety ( recently released reports documenting the dangerous trends associated with ATV operation on public roads. The latest research on ATVs on roads; ATV death and injury data; lists of members of a new coalition formed to address this public health crisis; and advocacy efforts undertaken by this coalition are available at We urge you to oppose any proposal to allow ATV use on roads because ATVs on roads place the public, including ATV operators, pedestrians, bicyclists, and all motor vehicle drivers and their passengers at unnecessary risk. 10/19/15 Barbara Brandt We hope that you will consider these comments, and if we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact Michael Best at Consumer Federation of America at mbest@consumerfed.org or (202) Garrison Township is responsible for Dykeman Cemetery, located within Garrison Township at County Road 8 and CSAH 22. When County Road 8 was widened several years back, the west right of way was taken and also included the last row in Dykeman Cemetery. There is a burial site for a baby in that row with a marker stone monument, and a blue cemetery post marking this gravesite. In the past, all-terrain vehicles have used this west-side road right of way at the east border of Dykeman Cemetery and run over the baby s grave which is very disturbing. As the Garrison Township Cemetery Supervisor, I need your help to eliminate the all terrain vehicle use of this road right of way bordering Dykeman Cemetery. Thank you for your comments. This issue does not directly relate to the proposed revisions to Ordinance No. 0601, but we are happy to work with you on resolving this ATV related issue. In order to proactively increase awareness of the cemetery area and ensure that ATV traffic rides on the west shoulder of County Road #8, the Pine Center ATV Club intends to install additional signage in strategic areas to further emphasize, stay on the shoulder in order to avoid impacts to the cemetery to the west. In addition, the Land Services Department will work with the Pine Center ATV Club to monitor ATV activity and determine if further mitigations will be necessary to protect the values of the cemetery moving forward /19/15 Larry Wannebo Could your ATV Ordinance prohibit all terrain vehicles from using the west road right of way, and instead use the east side road right of way on County Road 8 bordering the corn/sunflower field? And include adequate signage to eliminate any all terrain vehicles from using that right of way for their travel. CSAH #66 should be closed to both class 2 and class 1 ATVers, as it is in the current ordinance. Findings of Fact Please contact Crow Wing County Land Services at for further questions on this matter. Thank you for your comments. The proposed changes to Ordinance No includes use only by Class 2 ATVs operated on the right shoulder or the extreme right-hand side of the road consistent with Minnesota Statute language concerning the use of Class 2 ATVs within 6

7 Class 2 ATVers are allowed on most county roads in the state, except for public road right-of-ways (MS Subd. 1 c(1)). No ditch or outside CSAH #66 because the legislature allows counties to close county roads and bank use (where they exist) will be allowed. road rights-of-way if commissioners find good cause to do so. In the case of #66, the commissioners closed it because the ATVers tore up the ditches so bad that sand was running into Big Trout Lake. ATVers now ride in mixed groups of class 1 and class 2 machines. Class 2 must ride on the shoulder of the road and class 1 s must ride in the ditch. If you open #66 to class 2 ATVers, enforcement will have increased violations of class 1 s riding ON the road. You will confuse the public. Closed to ATVers means closed very simple. Draw the line now before the dune buggies and other four and six- wheeled creatures crawl out of the swamps of the creative motor-head minds. Mixing more high-speed recreational vehicles on #66 with an already large group of drivers that are not familiar with the many side roads, parking lots and approaches will result in more accidents. Seventy-three class 1 and 2 ATVers have died in Minnesota in the past five years. ATVers do not have a good record on the road, possibly because of the floatation tires that do not steer well on black top at high speeds over 30 MPH. Both classes of ATVers head north off the end of #66 on the Whitetail Trail, The Old Grade, Kego Lake Road and Ramsey Road to get to real off road experiences on public land. Often their disregard for our wetlands and wild places is displayed on their machines covered with mud as their proud badges of I GOT LOST as reason for riding in a wetland. Opening #66 to ATVers means that the commissioners turn a blind eye to what these ATVers do when they get in the woods. If the proposed ordinance revisions are approved, appropriate and clear signage will be installed indicating that only Class 2 ATVs are allowed. The assertion that ATV users have disregard for laws or that opening County Road #66 only to Class 2 ATVs will increase violations or accidents is purely speculative. As of 11/16/2015, 18 Minnesota counties have a process, policy, or ordinance in place that allows for the current operation of ATVs on roadway surfaces including three that have been approved in the past two years. They include: Aitkin 6, Beltrami, Blue Earth, Cass 7, Chippewa, Clearwater, Cook, Goodhue, Itasca, Koochiching, Lake, Marshall, Pennington, Pine, Polk, Roseau, St. Louis 8, and Wabasha County. Since being approved, none have been rescinded. Between January 1, 2014 and November 13, 2015, the Crow Wing County Sherriff s Office created 42,572 service calls. Of those, 62 (approximately one-tenth of one percent of all services) were related to a potentially unlawful ATV incidence. Therefore, ATVs currently account for a small fraction of the potential incidences deputies enforce. Of those 62 calls: - 51 involved an ATV in operation. - 1 was related to alcohol use. - 7 were personal injury crashes. According to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Enforcement s Incident Report summary, there were approximately 72 accidents per-100,000 registered ATVs (0.07%) in This compares to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Office of Traffic Safety s information indicating 1,507 accidents per- 6 Policy = Corridor Access Trail Permit allows use on County roadway surfaces. 7 Process = A Grant-In-Aid ATV Trail on the roadway surface of a county road in/near Outing, Minnesota. Surface material is bituminous or gravel. 8 Ordinance = As of 11/16/2015 it is in a pilot phase, with the expectation of full-ordinance passage in April, Minnesota DNR Division of Enforcement. All-terrain vehicle certification, registration, & accident statistics 1982-present. Accessed online on 7

8 100,000 motor vehicles (1.5%) in The data shows that in 2010, the rate of accidents for highway licensed vehicles was 21 times higher than for ATVs. All other Crow Wing County jurisdiction roadways (county roads) are currently open to Class 2 ATVs. This includes two segments on the Crow Wing County Southern Loop ATV trail which has several portions of the trail where ATVs ride on the roadway surfaces in places where ditch or outside bank travel is physically inaccessible. Many county roads have shoulder widths that are narrower and have highway vehicle traffic counts that are higher than County Road #66 as per-data obtained from the Crow Wing County Highway Department. According to the Sherriff s Office incidence report data, there have been no more than three reported and verified ATV related accidents within county road right-of-ways in the past two years. I ve seen mixed class 1 and 2 ATVer groups riding on the highway together along #66. When they came to a nice grassy, wide ditch area, some of the class 1 s pealed off into the ditch to go up and down the banks. They want to test their riding skills and their machines Off Road in the ditch. #66 from the bridge at Crosslake to CSAH #1 in Manhattan Beach was approved to be closed to all ATVers because this easily defined road segment made it easier for enforcement and for signage. A key component of regulating use by ATVs within road rights-of-way is safety. In Crow Wing County, this is partially accomplished through proper enforcement. Officers with the Sherriff s Office have full authority to enforce state statutes and county ordinances including ATV operation on roadways and rights-of-way (MS , Subd. 1). All crimes including trespass and reckless driving need to be reported immediately to the Crow Wing County Sherriff s Office so those who break such laws are held responsible for their actions. If the proposed ordinance revisions are approved, appropriate and clear signage will be installed indicating that only Class 2 ATVs are allowed. Is it still a fact that the state s open bottle law doesn t apply to class 2 operators? If so, a person can legally drive their class 2 ATV, holding a beer can, with a load of kids, along the edge of a rural road, even at night. Does the public want class 2 ATVers bar-hoping at night in Crosslake and Manhattan Beach? How are the Crosslake police and county sheriff going to handle the extra workload created by more drunks on the road? It is hard to believe that the majority of Crosslake businesses want ATVers running in and out of their parking lots and parking illegally by the door. The Open Bottle Law as defined by MS 169A.35 applies to all motor vehicles, but does not include, off-road recreational vehicles except when being operated on a roadway or shoulder of a roadway that is not part of a grant-in-aid trail or trail designated for that vehicle by the commissioner of natural resources. Because this proposal does not include application to the State of Minnesota as a Grant-In-Aid ATV Trail nor is it under the direction of the commissioner of natural resources, the Open Bottle Law applies to Class 2 ATVs operating on the shoulder or extreme right-hand side of the roadway. As per MS 169A.35, Subd. 2, 3, & 4, it is a crime for a person to possess an open 10 Minnesota Department of Public Safety. Minnesota Motor Vehicle Crash Facts: Minnesota Traffic Crashes in P. 9, table Accessed online on 8

9 What some people won t support to sell a few bottles of beer to someone that container of, or drink an alcoholic beverage, distilled spirit, or 3.2 doesn t need anymore. percent malt liquor in a motor vehicle upon a street or highway. Regardless of the applicability of the Open Bottle Law, driving while impaired (MS 169A.20), reckless/careless driving (MS ), and general operation requirements (MS Subd. 1a and 2 driver s license, lights, etc.) are always enforceable in the State of Minnesota and are punishable by law. This stretch of road has 35 and 45 mph speed limits and is becoming much more congested with not only cars and trucks, but with hundreds of hikers, walkers, bikers, skaters and dogs every day in the summer. #66 is a high traffic area. Even the spring and fall are being noticed as being busier than in the past, with the comment, The weekends now begin on Thursday s in Crosslake. Because of the increased tourist population of the Crosslake/Manhattan Beach area, we have cars parking along the shoulders at many locations all summer and even in the winter at: The Log Church, the Lutheran Church, the beer trucks at Moonlight Bay, cars on both sides at the Bourbon Room, and both sides of #66 at the public landing at Big Trout Lake for a quartermile. #66 is pockmarked with dozens of places and days when the shoulders where the class 2 ATVers are to ride are full of parked cars for one event or another. Possible increased congestion by ATVs will be substantially mitigated due to the designated non-motorized trail that runs parallel to County Road #66, beginning just south of the intersection of County Road #3 and County Road #66and ending just north of the intersection of County Road #16 and County Road #66. Walkers, bikers, skaters, and other non-motorized users have the option to use the paved trail in the summer time. In the winter, it is groomed as a designated snowmobile trail as well. This trail covers approximately 2.1 miles of the total 5.1 mile stretch (41%) of County Road 66, the section with the most concern for congestion in terms of average daily traffic counts. Most of the congestion that may occur due to licensed highway vehicles parking typically occurs in near proximity to residential and business areas on the south end of the roadway, where the 35 mph zone and runs parallel to the non-motorized trail. Compared to other paved Crow Wing County roadways: County Road #66 s 35 mile-per-hour (mph) speed limit, which covers 41% of the roadway length, is 20 miles per-hour lower than the speed limit on many other county roads, which is typically 55 mph. The remaining portion is 45 mph. County Road #66 s paved shoulder width is 8 feet on both sides of the road, which is typically the widest shoulder width that Crow Wing County considers on its roadways. In 2012, County personnel visited three Wisconsin Counties to observe Class 1 and 2 ATV use upon County roadways in both rural and urban city settings. The results of that trip indicated that safe, responsible riding practices occurred with no fatalities and only one accident directly attributable to roadway use by ATVs. County roadways in those areas were typically used by ATVs when: a.) the posted roadway speed limit was on average 45 miles per hour or less, 9

10 b.) where there was no reasonable alternative route due to natural terrain barriers such as lakes, wetlands, or lack of available local roads, or c.) where there was access to either local businesses or a designated trail. County road #66 meets at least one of those criteria. How much time will law enforcement spend on ATVers that whine ignorance of the law and give them a warning because it is not good for business to give tickets. I ve got a novel idea, how about all enforcement do a saturation ATV patrol around here for a couple of weekends in the Fall and educate people by enforcing the current ATV laws. Law enforcement agencies have a statutory obligation to follow-up in a reasonable time frame with all legitimate public complaints. Once a citizen informs a law agency of a potential law violation, an incident report is generated and tracked until its conclusion. It is up to the discretion of the law enforcement officer to decide if a citation is the most appropriate tool to use to enforce laws, as the nature and circumstances of each incident may vary considerably. Concerning ATV patrols, each year, the Sherriff s Office receives funds to monitor County recreation ATV use from the Off-Highway Vehicle Safety Enforcement Grant, provided by the State of Minnesota. Typically, those monitoring efforts have occurred in the fall of the year. Particularly because the proposal involves a new use on a roadway, law enforcement officials with the Sherriff s Office will be keenly aware of County Road #66 as it relates to ATV use. Conclusion Well, all the fact finding is useless and won t change the fact that this is a political decision that will be made by the commissioners of Crow Wing County. In the past, the majority of these commissioners leaned toward economic development at the cost of our natural resources, public safety and at the expense of the peace and quiet (quality of life) of our local residents. If you don t like their politics, elect somebody else next time David Hauser Concerning the proposed changes on this ordinance regarding travel on road shoulders I would ask that both class 1 and 2 are included in this request. Class 1 are very popular and also need a way to get through Crosslake. 10 Thank you for your comments. The proposed revisions to Ordinance No is the result of a request made by the City of Crosslake. At the August 26, 2013 City of Crosslake Council meeting, the Council reviewed a request by the City of Crosslake. By unanimous motion, at its 8/26/2013 Council meeting, the City of Crosslake formally asked Crow Wing County to review the ordinance and consider modifying to allow Class 2 ATV operation on County Road 66. Additionally, at the 7/13/2015 Council meeting, a unanimous motion was passed to authorize the mayor of Crosslake to sign a letter to the 14

11 Crow Wing County Board requesting that the County change their ordinance to restrict class 2 ATV use in ditches along County Road 66. The proposed changes to this ordinance does not include use by Class 1 ATVs. 10/23/15 Matt Werneke I would like to see the ATV rule in Crosslake on County Rd 66 to Change to Thank you for your comments. See responses to comment #14, above. 15 allow Class 1, and Class 2 ATV-UTV along Co Rd 66 to County Rd 1. 10/23/15 Scott Rayman Please consider this public comment in support of amending Ordinance 0601 Thank you for your comments. See responses to comment #14, above. 16 in favor of permitting Class II ATVs usage of County Road #66 from 10/23/15 Tim Roggenkamp 10/23/15 Lisa Roggenkamp I would like to voice my support of amending Ordinance 0601 in favor of permitting Class II ATVs usage of County Road #66 from County Road #3 to County Road #1. As a resident of Crosslake, a business owner, and ATV and snowmobile enthusiast, I think opening this corridor to ATV travel would add an important recreational opportunity to the area to allow residents and visitors access to the many trails north of County road 1. In addition, I think it would be a plus economically as folks riding those trails would be able to access the businesses in Crosslake for food, fuel and supplies. I would also encourage the Board to consider the feasibility of opening the #66 access to Class I ATVs as well. Please consider this public comment in support of amending Ordinance 0601 in favor of permitting Class II ATVs usage of County Road #66 from Thank you for your comments. See responses to comment #14, above. 17 Thank you for your comments. See responses to comment #14, above

12 north woods of Crow Wing County. 10/23/15 Cindy Roggenkamp Please consider this public comment in support of amending Ordinance 0601 in favor of permitting Class II ATVs usage of County Road #66 from Thank you for your comments. See responses to comment #14, above /23/15 Kay Cardinal Please vote to allow ATV s to ride on the shoulder of Rt 66. This is good for our businesses who need all the help they can get in the summer and winter. 10/23/15 Rodney Wegner Please consider this public comment in support of amending Ordinance 0601 in favor of permitting Class II ATVs usage of County Road #66 from Thank you for your comments. Providing designated, managed routes for ATV use is consistent with the goals of the County s Comprehensive Plan to provide diverse recreational opportunities that are accessible to people of all ages and abilities while preserving the County s high quality natural areas and open space /23/15 Mark Zroka Please consider this public comment in support of amending Ordinance 0601 in favor of permitting Class II ATVs usage of County Road #66 from 12 Thank you for your comments. See responses to comment #14, above. 22

13 north woods of Crow Wing County. 10/23/15 Kyle Roggenkamp As an avid outdoor enthusiast, I m writing to ask that you please consider amending Ordinance 0601 in favor of permitting Class II ATV s to use County Road #66, from County Road #3 to County Road #1. It s a very important link between a lot of ATV trails and the city of Cross Lake, and can do a lot of economic good for the city, as well as allow ATV and outdoor enthusiasts to enjoy everything that the area has to offer. Thank you for your comments. See responses to comment #14, above. 23 In addition to my above request, I d like to encourage the Board to also consider the opening access to County Road #66 to Class I ATV s in the future as well. 10/26/15 Bruce Wisner Please consider this public comment in support of amending Ordinance 0601 in favor of permitting Class II ATVs usage of County Road #66 from 10/26/15 Larry Moses I am writing about the ATV Ordinance change. I support allowing ATV;s along Co. Rd. 66. I would also like to see both type 1&2 included. With the DNR classification change made on several that were once type 2, are now reclassified as type 1. My request / recommendation would be to allow both type 1 & 2 on the extreme right side on Co. Rd 66 ROW. 10/26/15 Tom Zabka Please consider this public comment in support of amending Ordinance 0601 in favor of permitting Class II ATVs usage of County Road #66 from County Road #3 to County Road #1. County Road 66 is an important link from Crosslake up to County #1 where riders can access many approved ATV trails-including the trail systems in Emily and Outing. In addition, such 13 Thank you for your comments. See responses to comment #14, above. 24 Thank you for your comments. See responses to comment #14, above. 25 Thank you for your comments. See responses to comment #14, above. 26

14 access would be an economic benefit to Crosslake businesses (like during snowmobile season) for riders to come into town for gas, supplies and to eat. Like snowmobiling, ATV riding has become a great way to spend time with family and friends and build great memories in the great northwoods of Crow Wing County. 10/26/15 Richard Eide Please consider this public comment in support of amending Ordinance 0601 in favor of permitting Class II ATVs usage of County Road #66 from 10/26/15 Jodie Spencer Please consider this public comment in support of amending Ordinance 0601 in favor of permitting Class II ATVs usage of County Road #66 from 10/26/15 Ken Irish The Cuyuna Iron Range Riders ATV club and members are supporting the proposed changes to allow class 2 ATVs on the right shoulder of the road right of away. Many of our club members have class 1 ATVs and would like the ordinance provision amended to include class 1 ATV s. By only allowing class 2 ATV s it will put people that own class 1 ATVs at a disadvantage. If a group of people are riding and there are class 1 and class 2 riding together Thank you for your comments. See responses to comment #14, above. 27 Thank you for your comments. See responses to comment #14, above. 28 Thank you for your comments. See responses to comment #14, above

15 and came up to the point in the road where the ordinance is in effect the class 1 riders would have to stop and trailer their machines to get to the next point. We are requesting that class 1 ATV s be included in the ordinance change. 10/27/15 Darrel Palmer I am writing these comments on behalf of the Central Lakes ATV Club. Our club is headquartered in the Brainerd Area with approximately 150 members. Our area clubs currently have over 1000 members who enjoy riding the ATV trail systems locally that we have helped build and maintain over the years. Our club members volunteer their time to work on ATV trail development and management, youth safety training, and Trail Ambassador activities. We also assist in numerous area events such as the JC Ice fishing contest and Run for the Lakes, area parades, assist in offering ATV rides at Camp Confidence, host a booth at the county fairground, as well as assist in numerous other area projects. We strive to be responsible riders and stewards of the outdoors where we enjoy spending our time. The proposed changes to the Crow Wing County Ordinance No are a positive step forward for ATV riders in the Cross Lake MN area. County Road 66 has been closed for a number of years to local ATV riders. At the time this road was closed environmental concerns were part of the concerns and Class 2 ATV s were in their early stages of use. Much has changed since the road was closed. Class 2 ATV s have gained in popularity and represent approximately 15-20% of the machines licensed today. Area clubs have stepped up to the local challenges and have created new trails in our area and the Trail Ambassador program was implemented by the MN DNR and the ATV Association of MN. This program has been a great success for both ATV riders and property owners across the state. The landscape today looks much different than We support allowing Class 2 ATV s of County Road 66 but just allowing Class 2 ATV s on the road shoulder seems to create a potential problem from our perspective. What will happen when a group of ATV riders consisting of riders on Class 1 and Class 2 machines get to this section of road? Currently state law allows the Class 2 ATV to ride on the right hand side of the road but if the ditch on County Road 66 remains closed to Class 1 ATV s we are concerned that it will send the wrong signal to riders and either there will be Class 1 and Class 2 ATV s both riding on the right hand side of the road or Class 1 ATV s will attempt to ride in the ditch. From our perspective this is just going to create problems for groups of riders and will result in unnecessary conflicts and fines. As mentioned above part of the reason County Road 66 was closed was for environmental reasons. The road 15 Thank you for your comments. See responses to comment #14, above. The proposed changes to Ordinance No is consistent with Minnesota Statute language concerning the use of Class 2 ATVs within public road right-of-ways (MS Subd. 1 c(1)). No ditch or outside bank use (where they exist) will be allowed. 30

16 runs alongside Trout Lake and when ATV s were riding in this ditch there were concerns of erosion into the lake from the ditch. The solution to this problem from our perspective would be to allow both Class 1 and Class 2 ATV s to ride on the right hand side of the road. Other counties in Minnesota are passing similar ordinances and we would be happy to obtain copies of these if the County would like us to. Please adopt the proposed Ordinance but amend it to include both Class 1 and Class 2 ATV s. If you have any further questions please feel free to call me at Thank you for your time! 10/28/15 John Carlson Please consider this public comment in support of amending Ordinance 0601 in favor of permitting Class II ATV s useage of Co Rd 66 from Co Rd 3 to Co Rd 1. Co Rd 66 is an important link from Crosslake to Co Rd 1 where riders can access many ATV trails. It would also benefit Crosslake Businesses with fuel, food and lodging. Also I encourage the Board to consider opening #66 to Class 1 ATV s as well. 10/28/15 Tracy Hedberg Please consider this public comment in support of amending Ordinance 0601 in favor of permitting Class II ATVs usage of County Road #66 from 10/28/15 Mark Stafford Please consider this public comment in support of amending Ordinance 0601 in favor of permitting Class II ATVs usage of County Road #66 from Thank you for your comments. See responses to comment #14, above. 31 Thank you for your comments. See responses to comment #14, above. 32 Thank you for your comments. See responses to comment #14, above

17 Open 66 so we can ride the ditch!! 10/28/15 Lisa Moonen Please consider this public comment in support of amending Ordinance 0601 in favor of permitting Class II ATVs usage of County Road #66 from 10/28/15 Tara Hedberg Please consider this public comment in support of amending Ordinance 0601 in favor of permitting Class II ATVs usage of County Road #66 from Thank you for your comments. See responses to comment #14, above. 34 Thank you for your comments. See responses to comment #14, above /28/15 Rebecca Peterson Please consider this public comment in support of amending Ordinance 0601 in favor of permitting Class II ATVs usage of County Road #66 from 17 Thank you for your comments. See responses to comment #14, above. 36

18 10/28/15 Andrea Martin Please consider this public comment in support of amending Ordinance 0601 in favor of permitting Class II ATVs usage of County Road #66 from Thank you for your comments. See responses to comment #14, above /29/15 Dave Smith I am in full support of the proposed allowance of class 1 atvs to be operated on the shoulder of county Rd 66 and all roads in crosslake. I am an avid sportsman and this would be a great convenience for me and many others. Thank you for your comments. The proposed changes to Ordinance No is consistent with Minnesota Statute language concerning the use of Class 2 ATVs within public road right-of-ways (MS Subd. 1 c(1)). The proposed changes to this ordinance does not include use by Class 1 ATVs /30/15 Bill Schiltz I am sending this letter in response to the proposed change in the ordinance prohibiting ATV usage on Cty Rd 66. I am 100% in favor of changing the ordinance to allow both class 1 and 2 ATV vehicles to use Cty Rd 66. We are currently in the process of building a new home on the corner of Albinson Rd and Cty Rd 66. We will be directly affected by this traffic and additional noise (if any). The city of Crosslake, resorts and restaurants are missing out on the economic benefit of these trail users by prohibiting their use. This is a good wholesome family activity that should be welcomed. The new ATVs have to meet new stringent noise and safety regulations and should be no louder than automobiles and trucks. Thank you for your comments. See responses to comment #14, above