Glendale council gives staff consensus on e‑bike, e‑scooter rules; ordinance to be drafted

Glendale — The City Council on Sept. 9 gave staff consensus to draft an ordinance regulating electric bicycles and scooters, including age limits by vehicle class, a helmet requirement, sidewalk use rules and an escalating penalty structure, city staff and council members said at a workshop session.

Deputy City Manager Rick Saint John opened the discussion, saying the goal was to determine whether the council “even want[s] to adopt an ordinance” and that staff was “seeking council consensus today on the adoption of an electric bicycle [and] electric scooter ordinance.”

The council’s discussion focused on safety and enforceability. Council members agreed on different minimum ages for different device classes: class 3 e‑bikes (pedal‑assist capable of up to 28 mph) at 16 years old, class 1 and class 2 e‑bikes (top production speeds near 21 mph) at 14, and e‑scooters at 12. Vice Mayor Tomichoff and other council members said staff should draft the ordinance reflecting those tiers.

The council also reached consensus on helmet requirements. After staff and council members noted Arizona’s motorcycle helmet statute and safety concerns, the body agreed to set the helmet requirement to align with state practice, making helmets mandatory for those under 18.

Council members said the ordinance should limit devices to single riders but allow an additional passenger when a device is manufactured and equipped with a permanent seat designed for two, and should bar carrying items that obstruct control or vision. Members directed staff to include a prohibition on reckless conduct and a provision requiring riders to keep “both wheels on the ground.”

On sidewalk and street use, the council asked staff to allow e‑scooters on sidewalks in areas where roadway speed limits exceed 25 miles per hour and to permit sidewalk use on lower‑speed residential streets unless pedestrian traffic is heavy; they recommended language that gives pedestrians priority and allows officers to require riders to dismount where pedestrian congestion creates a safety issue.

The council also asked that lighting and reflectors be required for night use and discussed limiting use of e‑bikes that exceed the 28 mph federal/state class 3 threshold. Saint John noted examples from other jurisdictions and relayed a fleet manager’s recommendation that riders “refrain from carrying anything that prevents full control of the device or obstructs their vision.”

On penalties, council members discussed escalating civil fines. The council directed staff to draft a penalty schedule with an incremental approach, with maximum civil penalties discussed up to $250 for a second offense and up to $500 for repeat violations; the council asked that third offenses carry a substantial sanction and discussed requiring appearance in court for repeat violators. Several members opposed treating repeat violations as a criminal misdemeanor for youth.

Council discussion included a letter read into the record from Giovanni Cauldron, a member of the Merage Youth Advisory Commission, who urged lower age thresholds for some riders and called for mandatory helmets and school‑based safety education. “They both absolutely believe that the helmet should be required at all times for all ages,” the letter read.

City staff said they would return a drafted ordinance and recommended language to a future voting meeting; no formal vote was taken at the workshop. The council moved on after staff confirmed it would prepare code language and a scoping memo for a public meeting where a formal vote could occur.

What happens next: Staff will draft ordinance language reflecting the council’s consensus points and bring the item back to a public voting meeting for ordinance introduction and possible adoption.