Council remains divided on drones

CELINA - City council members droned on for well over an hour during Monday night's committee and regular meetings, debating proposed limits on the use of unmanned aerial vehicles in town.

Though they remain deeply divided on the issue, most voted "yes" on the first reading of a newly introduced ordinance restricting flights over certain private property and city-owned land, to keep the discussion moving forward. Councilman Bill Sell was the only member voting against the measure.

After a drawn-out debate stretching through an hourlong commitee of a whole meeting and much of the regular meeting, the ordinance was passed to second reading. As it stands now, the ordinance would essentially bar the use of drones over city property unless the operator obtains a written permit from the city safety service director, a process that would include a background check and fingerprinting.

Residents would be allowed to fly drones over their own property or, with permission from the owners, over other private property; land owned by other governments, including the county and schools; and business properties.

Council members Fred LeJeune and Jeff Larmore have serious safety concerns about permitting drones to fly anywhere in town. They fear the devices could injure people either by crashing into them or by photographing them for nefarious purposes.

Other council members, including June Scott, Eric Clausen and Jason King believe a total ban would improperly deprive citizens of their liberty.

LeJeune said he knows of three recent incidents in which drones flew over private property without the owners' consent.

On Saturday, he said a drone was zooming around Walmart, fixated on a table where Boy Scouts and adult chaperones were selling popcorn. Neither Walmart's management nor the Boy Scouts had anything to do with the drone, LeJeune said. He objects to drone flights in Celina primarily out of concern for children's safety.

"It seems like the most reasonable and safest approach is just to make one perimeter and that's the city limit," he said. "In my opinion, this being new, someone flying aircraft 400 feet in the air, they're all going to fall at 9.8 meters per second squared, which is fast. It's going to cause an injury."

Scott agreed drones are becoming more common and can cause injury. However, he said he opposes denying people the right to fly devices on their own property.

Larmore said city council regulates what people can do in their backyards all the time, including restrictions on farm animals, firearms, trash and weeds.

"I just don't get this whole thing where we're getting hung up and getting too politically correct on a common sense (decision)," he said.

The proposal, Larmore said, seems chiefly intended to protect the city against liability.

"And now we're going to just take care of just city property, cover our own butts and not think about the rest of the people that we have an obligation to protect? I just think it's crazy," he said.

Larmore believes people will fly drones beyond their private property.

"I don't want anybody telling me what I can do on my private property. I understand your point, I get that, but for me, this is my property," council president Jason King said. "But to say that I'm breaking a law if I fly a drone over my property - which I don't even do - but to say that, I would have an issue with that. Big government needs to go away, in my opinion."

Clausen also called a citywide ban unfair.

"I feel that most people are going to do the right thing. They're going to handle it right," he said. "I think establishing a barrier around the city is going to punish everybody that's going to do it right for those very small percent of people that are going to do it wrong."

The current proposal would prohibit drones weighing more than 3 ounces from taking off, flying or landing in any airspace below 400 feet within city parks, over any city-owned property, any right-of-way and/or any easement.

Law enforcement agencies and operators, who are at least 21 years old and obtain written permission from the city safety service director, would be exempt from the limits.

The safety service director would have sole discretion to grant or deny permission. Applicants would be charged $10 in addition to paying the cost of a state criminal background check by the Mercer County Sheriff's Department.

Violations would be minor misdemeanors and carry a possible $150 fine.