Share Email 75 Shares

Newport resident Tammi Monfette, sporting a “Let us Vote” T-shirt, speaks against the ATV ordinance at an Oct. 21 meeting. Photo by Justin Trombly/VTDigger

The recent move to allow all-terrain vehicles on certain Newport roads may face a challenge.



A group of citizens is working to garner enough signatures for a public vote on the ordinance, which city councilors approved 3–1 on Oct. 21.



“The actual results of the vote — it doesn’t matter,” said resident Pam Ladds, part of the group. “The outcome is that people in Newport are included in major decisions like this.”



Get Final Reading delivered to your inbox. Sign up free.

About a dozen residents have been collecting signatures citywide, Ladds said, and as of Tuesday they had about 100.



State law requires they gather signatures from 5% of the voters in Newport within 44 days of the council decision. For the petition to advance, the group needs 181 signatures, based on state data.



The City Council’s decision last week came after a month of public deliberations on the ATV ordinance. As in other Northeast Kingdom communities this year, debate in Newport has centered on whether potential business boosts from ATVers would offset concerns about noise, traffic and safety.



Multiple Newport residents, and two city councilors, criticized how officials handled the ordinance process.



Before the idea came to the council on Sept. 16, City Manager Laura Dolgin, Mayor Paul Monette and department heads met with Scott Jenness, president of the Orleans County–based Borderline Ridge Riders ATV club.



Jenness, who did not respond to requests for comment, has been the chief advocate of the proposal.



VTDigger is underwritten by:

The first time councilors heard about the ordinance was at that September meeting, after most of the details had already been planned out.



Council President Julie Raboin, the lone no vote on the proposal, said at the Oct. 21 meeting that the council is often “presented with a done deal, something that’s already been assembled, and there’s really no room for negotiation. The same is true for this ordinance.”



She called for a public vote, saying she was disappointed in officials defending the process.



Councilor Dan Ross, a supporter of ATVs on city roads, said at that meeting that he felt the proposal was rushed.



Newport Councilor Dan Ross wanted to table the ATV issue to rework the proposal but ultimately voted for it. Photo by Justin Trombly/VTDigger

Ross agreed with concerns raised by Raboin and several audience members about one of the ATV routes — the stretch cutting through the Third Street neighborhood — and said he wanted to see the ordinance tabled for revision.



He voted for the law, but not before mentioning that citizens could start a petition.



Those sentiments fueled the effort to collect signatures, Ladds said.



“It’s not a smart move to ram an ordinance down people’s throat and say there is no discussion here,” she said.



The petition group wants in particular to stand up for the Third Street neighborhood, a low-income part of the city.



“If it was one of the wealthier neighborhoods, they would have to think very carefully,” Ladds said of city officials.



City Council President Julie Raboin and Mayor Paul Monette at an Oct. 7 meeting on ATVs. Photo by Justin Trombley/VTDigger

The route in that neighborhood enters the city from the southwest, along Highland Avenue, before merging with Pleasant Street and continuing onto Third Street.



Raboin, Ross and residents suggested changing the route so ATVs could instead take the Pleasant Street Extension onto Coventry Street, the city’s truck route.



That would have allowed ATVers to access the main stretch of downtown while bypassing the residential Third Street area.



But Jenness said at the Oct. 21 meeting that the route as written would be safer.



VTDigger is underwritten by:

He believed the turn onto Coventry Street from the Pleasant Street Extension could be dangerous. Councilors took no action on the suggested change.



“This could’ve been a win-win,” Ladds said. “We could’ve had the all-terrain vehicles coming into town down the truck route — that wouldn’t have disrupted any of the downtown neighborhoods.”



Correction: An earlier version of this story misstated the amount of time petitioners would have to attain a public vote. It is 44 days.

Share Email 75 Shares