Menu
Proposed UTV ordinance tabled again by City Council
It wasn’t exactly deja vu all over again but pretty close to it as the Greencastle City Council again tabled adoption of a proposed UTV (Utility Task Vehicle) ordinance.
In tabling Ordinance 2023-7 for the third time since December, there were at least a couple of new developments Thursday night.
First, there was actually a motion to approve the measure on second and final reading, with Fourth Ward Councilman Vince Aguirre trying to move it forward. However, that motion died for lack of a second.
And while the ordinance was ultimately tabled on a 5-1 vote (with Aguirre opposed), at the end of the discussion Mayor Lynda Dunbar offered her support for passing the measure.
“I’ve been to places where you see them (UTVs) all lined up outside while they’re inside eating,” she said, indicating passage could be a boost to local restaurants and businesses. “You can tell I’m for them.”
The mayor suggested that if UTV riders aren’t allowed to travel Greencastle streets, they will likely take their business elsewhere.
“If they can’t come to Greencastle for First Friday, they could find another First Friday and go there,” she added.
Meanwhile some revisions were made to the ordinance before its latest consideration. The notable changes include:
-- Revising the speed at which the vehicles must travel as 25 mph rather than the posted speed limit because Kubota UTVs are apparently limited to 25 mph.
-- Requiring all passengers younger than 18 to wear a helmet.
-- Altering the hours during which UTVs are not allowed on city streets as between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Sunday-Thursday and midnight to 6 a.m. Friday and Saturday.
-- Making the city registration sticker visible to the public by being placed on the back of the UTV.
Also, the first real public comment by someone opposed to creation of a city UTV ordinance came via a letter from Greencastle School Board member and former Democrat mayoral candidate Brian Cox, whose submission was read to the Council by its president, Stacie Langdon.
“While UTVs can be useful vehicles on farms and in rural areas,” Cox began, “their integration into city environments presents challenges.
“Economically, it’s essential to evaluate whether there is a tangible benefit to the community,” he added. “In the absence of extensive off-road trails or a strong recreational UTV culture within city limits, the economic impact would be minimal. Unlike areas where UTVs are integral to local commerce and tourism, it’s unlikely that most UTV owners in Greencastle or Putnam County base their shopping or dining decisions on the ability to drive their UTVs into or around town. Therefore, the economic rationale for passing such an ordinance seems lacking.”
Cox said safety is another critical factor.
“While many UTV owners are responsible drivers, the unfamiliarity of other road users with UTV behavior could lead to accidents or misunderstandings,” he said. “Unlike standard automobiles, UTVs have different handling characteristics and may provoke uncertainty among less-experienced drivers.”
Enforcement of the ordinance is another issue, Cox noted.
“While our Greencastle Police Department is capable of enforcing the new regulations, it adds another layer of responsibility to their workload. Allocating resources to manage UTV-related issues may detract from other law enforcement priorities, potentially stretching resources thin.
“Ultimately,” he continued, “the decision should prioritize the overall well-being of the community. If the economic benefits are minimal, safety concerns are significant and the consensus among residents is cautious, it may not be in the best interest of our community to pass this ordinance.
“In my opinion,” Cox concluded, “there are not enough community benefits to allowing UTVs on the streets of Greencastle.”
The Council, meanwhile, remained caught up in the signage issue. State statute indicates that streets upon which UTVs are allowed need to have signage to that effect posted. Several councilors have seen that as being costly and creating clutter.
However, nearby communities such as Brazil, Crawfordsville and Rockville have reportedly ignored that regulation or have posted signage only at the entrances to their towns.
That is not how the state statute is written, City Attorney Laurie Hardwick stressed, noting that if someone is involved in an accident and inaccurate signage is discovered, it won’t be the state that is sued, it will be the city.
“Signage is the big issue for me,” Councilman David Masten said. “It’s pretty clear we’re going to have signs everywhere.”
He suggested getting clarification from the Indiana Attorney General’s Office on the matter before there is a final vote. Hardwick agreed to ask for that opinion on signage requirements.
“I don’t see that it’s imperative to do something now,” Masten continued. “The city has been here 203 years without this ordinance. Getting with the state people would make me a lot more comfortable.”
“We want to make it work,” Councilor Katherine Asbell interjected in addressing the pro-UTV crowd assembled, “we’re just stuck on signage.”
Masten said he has reached out to State Rep. Beau Baird (R-Greencastle), who said he would be happy to help the city after the current short session of the legislature is over. Masten added that he wants to wait because if the city is going to do it, he wants “to do it right.”
Meanwhile, Councilor Langdon suggested, “If we pass this, I don’t think we can walk it back. It’ll be the way it is in Greencastle.”
Aguirre, whose motion earlier died for lack of a second, said he had “not heard any reason not to vote or any reason not to pass it” that night.
“I agree it’s cumbersome,” he said, “but at minimum we throw it to a committee and clean it up together.”
Mark Hammer, the longest-serving councilman in recent Greencastle history, said he has “way too many questions” to move forward with it right now.
Hammer called it “an administrative nightmare” creating extra demands upon the city clerk’s office and City Police to enforce the elements of the ordinance.
“This whole thing all came to a head because of DePauw’s use ... or misuse ... of them,” Hammer added. “There really weren’t other UTVs around. Now we have people who have them or want them.”
Hardwick agreed, noting that City Hall has received “many, many complaints over the years of ‘Why can’t I ride mine if DePauw uses theirs?’”
Mayor Dunbar said she has talked with DePauw officials about the matter previously. The university reportedly has 26 UTVs in use.
“I had discussions with them a couple weeks ago,” the mayor said, “and they’re still out there running around on them. As far as enforcement goes, it’s a problem either way.
“I don’t think they’re going to be dangerous. Your bike you’re riding home tonight is more dangerous, a car could hit you,” she told Aguirre, who rides his bike around town and to Council meetings.
The rules need to be the same for everybody, a spokesman for the UTV users in the audience noted.
Aguirre asked that if the Council didn’t pass the ordinance (which it later tabled) Thursday night, “Are we going to equally enforce it?”
City department uses are fine, Masten assured, because the state statute allows municipalities to use UTVs for work reasons. DePauw would be another story.
Hammer made the motion to table the ordinance for a third time with Masten, Asbell, Langdon and Tina Nicholson adding affirmative votes and Aguirre voting against the motion to table. Councilman Darrel Thomas was absent.
After the vote, Mayor Dunbar instructed Police Chief Chris Jones that if his officers see DePauw vehicles out, “no warnings or anything, just write them a ticket.”
The City Council will next meet in regular session at 7 p.m. Thursday, March 14 at City Hall.