Bryan council declines to adopt amended e‑scooter ordinance after public debate

The Bryan City Council voted down, on third reading, an amended ordinance to create a local code regulating low‑speed micromobility devices, including e‑scooters.

The vote on Ordinance No. 19‑20‑25 as amended was 3 no, 1 yes (Councilmembers Steve, Jim and Mary voted no; Councilmember John voted yes). The motion on the floor was to approve the ordinance as amended; the mover and seconder were not specified on the record.

The ordinance proposed creating a new chapter in the Bryan codified ordinances to regulate low‑speed micromobility devices. Council and staff repeatedly said the primary aim was child and public safety — not a ban — and discussed aligning local rules with the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) provisions the meeting referenced for low‑speed micromobility devices (ORC section 4511.514 as cited in the meeting). Council and staff also noted that the ORC already contains provisions on device speed, required lighting, and rental age limits.

Residents urged council to reject stringent local limits. Bill Metz, a resident, told the council he worried an ordinance would “profile” young people and suggested school‑focused training instead; he urged a certification or safety class for students. Dustin Slachter, another resident, described growing up in the area and said scooters help children get to school and activities, and urged the city to be “progressive.”

Police and administration said complaints drove the proposal. Captain Mendez of the Bryan Police Department described calls and observations of unsafe riding patterns — multiple riders on a single device, riding in roadways and failing to use lights — and said the intent of the local ordinance was to give officers a local code to enforce when unsafe behavior occurs and to allow local fines to stay local rather than flow to the state. The captain and other staff described plans to have school resource officers (SROs) develop short lesson plans to teach students rules of the road at the start and end of the school year.

Council members debated whether to mirror the state code, add local restrictions (for example, single‑rider limits and lighting requirements), or rely on education. Some members expressed concern that a more complex local ordinance would be difficult to enforce and confusing for officers and children; others said the city should act if devices sold today exceed speeds contemplated when the state law was written.

Council discussion noted a pending state update mentioned in the meeting that was expected to take effect on 6/30/25 (as referenced by staff during the discussion); staff said they had asked a state representative for clarification but had not received a response before the meeting. Staff also noted that ORC rental rules already restrict rental to people 16 and older, while privately owned devices are treated differently under state law.

Because the ordinance failed on the third reading, the council left existing state law (the ORC provisions cited in the meeting) as the primary regulatory framework; staff described continuing plans for school‑based safety education and said the council could revisit local rules later if needed.

The discussion included public comment at the start of the meeting and council deliberations later in the agenda; the record shows a mix of concerns about safety, enforcement burden, and youth mobility. No new local ordinance was adopted at this meeting.