Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Golf Carts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council votes down reconsideration of golf-cart ordinance after public opposition
Summary
After public comments opposing substitute bill 2024-082 (golf cart/utility vehicle regulation) and a motion to reconsider, the council failed to approve reconsideration, leaving the ordinance in effect as previously rejected (reconsideration failed 4-5).
Jefferson City residents and several council members sparred Tuesday over substitute bill 2024-082, the city's ordinance regulating golf carts and utility vehicles on city streets, but a motion to reconsider the earlier vote failed.
Public commenter Jackie Johnson, who identified herself as a First Ward resident, urged council members to let the ordinance "die with tonight's meeting," saying the measure "is trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist" and arguing that the issue had consumed significant public and staff time.
On the dais, Councilman Joshua Schwartz moved to reconsider the substitute bill; another council member offered an amendment seeking a 90-day delay to allow staff to integrate the ordinance into municipal code and to make site-specific adjustments. Councilman Spencer urged colleagues to support the staff-backed measure, saying it had substantial prior backing during committee and earlier council discussion.
The clerk conducted a roll-call vote; the mayor announced the motion to reconsider failed with four ayes and five noes. The council recorded the vote as 4 ayes, 5 noes (the clerk summarized: "We get 4 ayes with 5 noes. Correct. Then reconsideration fails."). Because the motion on the floor was to reconsider the earlier passage, its failure left the prior status unchanged.
Why it matters: The ordinance has been contentious in public meetings and local media. Supporters say clarified rules enable safe, legal operation and provide inspections and licensing; opponents said it would benefit only a small group and could impose new administrative costs. Public commenters and council members also questioned whether the ordinance equates use of small electric vehicles with larger city-owned equipment and warned against expanding regulation without clear demonstrated need.
What's next: With the motion to reconsider defeated, council did not reopen the ordinance for amendment that night. Interested residents and council members can request the city place the item back on a future agenda via a formal motion or a new sponsorship.
