[{"_1":2,"_109":-5,"_110":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,86,98],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6136410,"mediaKeyId","5667770-92c58274366640ac00750f3aaea83d62","parentId",5667770,"title","Glendale council directs staff to draft e-bike and e-scooter ordinance after lengthy safety debate","audioSeconds",3326,"startMs",1361000,"endMs",4687000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5667770-92c58274366640ac00750f3aaea83d62&start=1361&end=4687","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5667770-92c58274366640ac00750f3aaea83d62/thumbnail_1361000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6136410/Glendale/Maricopa-County/Arizona/Glendale-council-directs-staff-to-draft-e-bike-and-e-scooter-ordinance-after-lengthy-safety-debate","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6136410-399a385ddc74a9d031a4d7f226a83d8c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771186724&Signature=QjAJ97ZYJd-8isdg9N9QdGhTMS3xB9wSHd5AxGg0bzCeTjCv-arI7L8CKryfMzRRsJzWE~Qx8zRtqQXxOd-h4j-SINoJfaJBTcaQgwJxENdZts5y6hLyq1nCI~IgLPda8gF9uYhpvMvruR9VMU-UUhelBUQcd5fIrdW4kVMS0Pdo4k3fJrMVxgoR~SOTAFlrwWtRp1CCV0~hSjFbXiuD1OVFm4RTM13Q3LOexn-efah-RElYcPyOTSgxEtSO5ZFI3IMVcUZBB-Cgks5o55F7ywpUcR-0vMsRYrfRFgGo4xW6f2qQL0jCuy~uAqyrJX01p8dBmMD6G4-EDDDIk6nhzw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Glendale Arizona","date","2025-08-13T00:00:00Z","article","Glendale City Council members tasked staff on Aug. 12 to draft an ordinance regulating electric bicycles and electric scooters after a wide-ranging workshop discussion about safety, speed, sidewalks and enforcement.

Deputy City Manager Rick St. John briefed the council on Arizona law and options for local regulation, noting that “electric bicycles are defined by Arizona law as having fully functional pedals and a motor of not more than 750 watts,” and explaining the Class 1–3 e‑bike distinctions and the state definition of electric scooters. He said the city’s parks code (Chapter 27) already bars e‑bikes and e‑scooters in parks but that other uses on sidewalks, bike paths and roadways are not uniformly regulated by local code.

The conversation focused on three practical questions: the minimum age for operation, whether helmets should be required, and where the devices should be allowed to operate (roadway, bike lane, multi‑use path, or sidewalk). St. John summarized options used by other cities including setting a minimum age (Phoenix has set 16), prohibiting sidewalk operation, restricting Class 3 bikes from multi‑use paths, and making ordinance violations civil offenses with a set fine. He recommended the council consider age limits, helmet requirements and limits on sidewalk use.

Council members voiced a range of views. Several members pressed for mandatory helmets and a robust public education period, including school‑based outreach through SROs and a 90‑day education window before formal enforcement. Concerns included devices that can be reprogrammed to exceed legal speeds; visible examples of young riders breaking traffic rules near schools; and safety risks when devices mix with pedestrian traffic on sidewalks. Other members argued sidewalks in some residential areas are preferable to rough local streets and suggested allowing low‑speed devices on sidewalks in 25‑mph or lower residential areas.

After extended discussion, council members gave staff direction to draft ordinance language reflecting the council’s preferences rather than adopting final rules at the workshop. The primary consensus points staff was asked to incorporate in the draft are: a minimum age of 12 for electric scooters and 16 for electric bicycles, helmet requirements, a single‑rider rule unless the device is designed with a designated passenger seat, and a staged education period prior to enforcement (suggested 90 days). Council members also asked staff and the city attorney to return with recommended civil fine amounts and with implementation options for sidewalk rules (for example, tying sidewalk allowance to adjacent speed limit or arterial classification).

St. John told the council staff will work with the city attorney to draft ordinance text and return at a future workshop with recommended fine schedules, enforcement approach and specific language on sidewalks, permitted device classes and equipment requirements (lights for night operation, single‑rider language and passenger restrictions). No ordinance was adopted; the direction given at the workshop is procedural guidance for staff to prepare a formal ordinance and enforcement framework for future council action.

Ending — Next steps: City staff and the city attorney will draft ordinance language incorporating the council’s directions (age thresholds, helmets, single‑rider rule, education period and sidewalk/roadway rules) and present options for fines and enforcement at a follow‑up workshop in coming weeks.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Glendale City Council Workshop August 12, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Glendale City Council members tasked staff on Aug. 12 to draft an ordinance regulating electric bicycles and electric scooters after a wide-ranging workshop discussion about safety, speed, sidewalks and enforcement.","taxTitle","Glendale, Maricopa County, Arizona","taxId",2564,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":44,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6136415,"Glendale council favors humane relocation and feeding ban as peafowl population swells around Sahuaro Ranch Park",1093,268000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5667770-92c58274366640ac00750f3aaea83d62&start=268&end=1361","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5667770-92c58274366640ac00750f3aaea83d62/thumbnail_268000.jpg","/articles/6136415/Glendale/Maricopa-County/Arizona/Glendale-council-favors-humane-relocation-and-feeding-ban-as-peafowl-population-swells-around-Sahuaro-Ranch-Park","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6136415-5e64fb5c3163e4ed911e05a46c3f8523/orig.mp4?Expires=1771186724&Signature=AgOUFVulnKrfJt1X54DpOlts0cPr6ePVXQmeJNnsXFuQAMLIdNeLoBIEIE6VFe~WHnYlUbQpMbC7z4X-wtX4bmRHDAf~XTG7hlKh9dJUu569jDgqmuKW8ORBwiBFUpQP9HCczKIHwFTw5-fO9Ei1xz6zZhlaRZT8-qMt5FnPCoUFmV6LXtbQnUcNiSwx5ucjaubSrfGNgKnhW0o5KdOl-5Jm6OuDGUdG5dojQwd2f45qJMFcipb0-fUdlAeySq-SEIP5nnvgPui~mncI2MIvZ~5ViptdxKuT~8x9eDvTf5I7COTyKZGqgO0wD~7pk7igRpCisMvaOrHTnhWIxDih8A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Glendale City Council signaled consensus on Aug. 12 to pursue a humane relocation program and a code amendment to prohibit feeding after staff reported a growing peafowl population that is causing property damage, sanitation complaints and rising maintenance costs.

City parks director John Kennedy told the council the birds are concentrated at Sahuaro Ranch Park, the Glendale Main Library and the Glendale Adult Center and that the population has increased in recent counts. “The peafowl are beautiful,” Kennedy said, and added the growing population “is causing community and operational challenges” that are not sustainable.

The issue matters because staff documented 28 formal complaints in the last two years and tabulated mounting facility costs tied to the birds. Kennedy said library cleanup runs about $12,000 a year under current service levels and could rise to $24,000 if the city increases collection frequency; he also cited a $55,000 skylight cleaning and repair estimate, a $25,000 chiller cleanup and other roof and securing costs. The Glendale Adult Center spends roughly $6,000 annually on cleanup, he said.

Staff recommended a two-part approach: (1) contract with Raptor Events, a wildlife relocation firm that has worked with other California jurisdictions, to trap and relocate birds to vetted farms and residences at least 20 miles away (estimated at about $425 per bird); and (2) amend city code to make feeding peafowl on public property enforceable. Texas A&M’s Department of Ecology and Conservation Biology told staff it would accept up to 40 birds for behavioral study and would cover transportation for those birds, Kennedy said.

Supporting details from staff included population counts and reproductive estimates: an in-house census found about 111 birds in February 2024, about 160 in February 2025 and an estimated 137 in March 2025; staff estimated there are currently roughly 130–160 peafowl in the park/library/adjacent neighborhoods. Kennedy described a mating season from April through September, with April–May as a peak; he noted each peacock may mate with five to seven peahens, each peahen may lay three to eight eggs, and with roughly a 50% chick survival estimate the population could reach about 300 by 2026 if unchecked.

Council members discussed available options and limits of authority. Several members supported relocation and a feeding prohibition while noting the birds are nonnative and not regulated by state wildlife rules. One council member noted state law already prohibits feeding wildlife; city staff advised peafowl are not a state-regulated species and that the city would need local ordinance language specific to peafowl feeding to create an enforceable prohibition. Council members asked staff to base the new provision on the existing pigeon-feeding ordinance (Chapter 25-24) and to return with draft language and an agreement with Raptor Events.

No formal vote was held at the workshop; staff sought and received consensus to proceed with drafting a relocation agreement and an amendment to the municipal code and to continue exploring catch‑sterilize‑release options with local partners. The council also asked staff to examine potential partners such as Texas A&M and Midwestern University and to return with details, costs and, if appropriate, a future agenda item for formal action.

Kennedy and council members emphasized humane treatment and prevention of reoccurrence — combining relocation, enforceable no‑feeding rules, and ongoing management to reduce future population growth and property impacts.

Ending — Next steps: Staff will draft ordinance language to add peafowl to the city’s feeding prohibition (using Chapter 25-24 as a model), prepare a proposed agreement with Raptor Events and outline cost and partner options (including Texas A&M and Midwestern University) for council consideration at a future meeting. No final action was taken at the workshop; the council directed staff to return with specifics.","City staff recommended relocating most of the peafowl that have concentrated at Sahuaro Ranch Park, library and adult center, and updating city code to ban feeding; council members signaled consensus to direct staff to draft agreements and an ordinance.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6136397,"Council directs update to parking citation ordinance to reflect current court processing",374,5101000,5475000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5667770-92c58274366640ac00750f3aaea83d62&start=5101&end=5475","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5667770-92c58274366640ac00750f3aaea83d62/thumbnail_5101000.jpg","/articles/6136397/Glendale/Maricopa-County/Arizona/Council-directs-update-to-parking-citation-ordinance-to-reflect-current-court-processing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6136397-99bdb94287c9d473ab18db6e17fb0006/orig.mp4?Expires=1771186724&Signature=Ce8Rn-WCRu-Y5inzvUmkOGLi1mFRIvB-0b0rnO1Ua1miyK~ewO50uTpj0l0RGNY522Gf47Q8EF56d1HLj62GBegs89R1~O7uS9P76bdGkIGplXOxamNe~oKSG8v0D2vU5vF-QYwqDpiDn7HyNSKVf8tlEqjIc9NWNtlKp6N1ZCFqTUE0p-DawRowQ5C8IRIwIfU7v2QOApMD2dPDWoPENxt5BN9Wm7G3tiOCl6PqVrLJr6mNWOZIqpqzw9m5suyfSrffLBSxRRuR2Z-I07LJunN4p5BC3ZmyFzu-ilDZChkRvSnMcxrRSIB3QqhzxcH-5EaaNXXsBFpuSv5d-SaFpw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Glendale staff told the City Council on Aug. 12 that the municipal parking citation ordinance predates current practice and needs amendments so the code matches how citations are issued and processed through the city court.

The presenter said the existing ordinance (Chapter 10, sections 24‑1‑32 through 24‑1‑36) contains provisions inconsistent with current operations — for example, language that places an initial administrative responsibility with a city office and describes a 14‑day payment window that no longer reflects the city’s practice of filing citations with the court. Staff proposed revisions to align the ordinance with the current process: explicitly note that the court receives and manages parking citations, include the citation officer’s affirmation and the hearing date/time on the summons, remove the obsolete 14‑day payment clause, and update language about failure to respond and the court’s remedies.

A staff presenter said the proposed changes are largely administrative and intended to remove language that has not been followed for many years and to provide clearer notice to cited motorists. Council members asked clarifying questions about applicability — including whether marked handicap‑parking violations and other specific offenses would be processed under the revised flow — and staff confirmed the changes would apply to all parking violations, including handicap‑parking citations. Several council members expressed support for the update.

Ending — Next steps: The council indicated consensus for staff to draft formal code amendments aligning Chapter 10 parking citation language with current practice and to return with proposed ordinance text for adoption at a later meeting.","City staff proposed amendments to align the municipal parking citation ordinance with long‑standing practice of processing citations through city court; council gave consensus to move forward and requested staff return with drafted code amendments.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":90,"_47":103,"_49":104,"_51":105,"_53":106,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":107,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":108,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6136403,"Glendale council backs updating smoking ordinance to cover e-cigarettes and to match state, federal tobacco‑21 law",309,4792000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5667770-92c58274366640ac00750f3aaea83d62&start=4792&end=5101","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5667770-92c58274366640ac00750f3aaea83d62/thumbnail_4792000.jpg","/articles/6136403/Glendale/Maricopa-County/Arizona/Glendale-council-backs-updating-smoking-ordinance-to-cover-e-cigarettes-and-to-match-state-federal-tobacco21-law","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6136403-e07efad1c1e5ae8cd89c4cafa71d6007/orig.mp4?Expires=1771186724&Signature=amzkq3uhH-0BvVSOkj5JLAD4JVRH-s5-B2MI8QD5Cd7dRkGAmueVMetjBaEW1k6UfbhXlLUB9hMz2uERN~-QC5eupF0FvTGn2H5vpgPXooJ3BdWPb~Ey4Ib~PtAT-lrJfEhf4rbiJsXxUdAybzbkLGcewsRM7lRLosozuc7dlNO8dm7DS2UXYf6P2xdZeYdfKVdJFPphSwU3UpQWTxN1KK1qIa77Yv8~kwoR0vTEfKegB-Vy7ZZJV6h4J~IegsB~~K0Ozug0wrJz6VaWOfXOYk0bfxR8L~jcMfEfZTWGG6Lry0bLpZi~zKWTvuzwzRQ4XdsQfD6AtzuMH2qE6ZKfVg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Glendale staff told the council on Aug. 12 that the city’s 1987 smoking pollution control ordinance needs updates to cover e‑cigarettes and to align the legal age to purchase and possess tobacco‑related products with federal and state law.

Staff explained the current municipal definition of “smoking” refers to burning tobacco, plant or weed and therefore does not capture non‑combustible products such as e‑cigarettes, vaping devices and nicotine pouches. The presenter said federal law raised the tobacco purchase age to 21 in 2019 and Arizona’s governor signed similar state legislation; amending the local code would align the municipal ordinance with those changes.

Staff recommended updating definitions to include e‑cigarettes and vaping, raising the local purchase/possession age to 21, and leaving the violation as a petty offense with a $10–$300 fine range. Several council members expressed support; one council member who serves on a local school board said vaping in schools (including incidents of students vaping in bathrooms) underlines the public‑health rationale for alignment with state and federal law. No changes to the proposed fine range were requested.

Ending — Next steps: The council indicated consensus to amend the smoking pollution control ordinance to include e‑cigarettes/vaping in the definition of smoking and to adopt the 21‑year purchase/possession threshold to conform with state and federal law. Staff will return with specific code language for formal action at a future meeting.","Staff recommended—and the council agreed in consensus—to amend the city’s smoking pollution control ordinance to define e-cigarettes and vaping and to align the local purchase/possession age with recent federal and state increases to 21; staff recommended keeping petty‑offense fines unchanged.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Glendale council directs staff to draft e-bike and e-scooter ordinance after lengthy safety debate

Glendale council favors humane relocation and feeding ban as peafowl population swells around Sahuaro Ranch Park

Council directs update to parking citation ordinance to reflect current court processing

Glendale council backs updating smoking ordinance to cover e-cigarettes and to match state, federal tobacco‑21 law