Mount Pleasant delays e‑bike, scooter ordinance after public hearing; commission orders work session

Mount Pleasant — The city commission voted May 27 to decline the proposed amendment to Chapter 72 of the city code that would have updated rules for bicycles and electric bicycles on city trails, and directed staff to schedule another work session to rewrite the measure.

The proposed ordinance would have updated the city’s traffic code to define e‑bike classes and where each may be ridden, added safety requirements (lights, brakes, signals), allowed the director of public safety or a designee to post prohibitory signs on sidewalks or paths, and made violations civil infractions with fines up to $50. The draft explicitly would have prohibited class 2 and class 3 e‑bikes on certain trails while permitting class 1 e‑bikes in some locations.

Commissioners and staff framed the hearing as an opportunity to resolve competing goals: preserving parks and trails for walkers and naturalists while keeping connections for nonmotorized travel. Public Safety Director Paul Lauria explained the draft’s technical approach and answered questions about class definitions and enforcement. “Class 1 requires the rider to pedal for the motor assist to operate,” Lauria said during the hearing, adding class 1 and class 2 are limited to 20 mph and class 3 to 28 mph under the draft’s definitions.

Public comment at the hearing was substantial and sharply split. Several residents urged the commission to restrict motorized vehicles in parks and on softer, natural trails. Lori Gills, a lifelong Mount Pleasant resident and former commissioner, told the commission corporate scooter services and motorized bikes create litter, block sidewalks and paths, and disproportionately affect lower‑income neighborhoods. “Scooters and electric bicycles should be prohibited in our local parks,” she said. Tim Bechtel and other speakers urged keeping motorized bikes out of Weitz Woods, arguing paving and motorized traffic would damage habitat and increase erosion.

Other speakers raised enforcement concerns. Joseph Carion, a nearby resident, asked how police would distinguish class 1, 2 and 3 bikes and whether officers would be trained to enforce the ordinance. Commissioners also questioned how speed would be measured and where signs would be posted. Several commissioners suggested simplifying the signage language to read “no motorized bikes” or to add a clear definition separating sidewalks from park paths.

After discussion, a majority of commissioners supported a motion to not adopt the ordinance as written and to hold another work session to address the points raised by residents and commissioners. The motion passed on a roll call vote. The commission did not adopt the ordinance at this meeting and will return the draft to staff for revision and a future work session.

The decision leaves the current Chapter 72 provisions in place while staff and commissioners work to revise definitions, signage authority, and enforcement language. Commissioners indicated they want clearer definitions of “sidewalk” versus “path,” clearer signage language that would be visible and enforceable, and explicit policies about where class 2 and class 3 e‑bikes will be prohibited.

What happens next: staff will schedule a work session to review a rewritten draft that incorporates clearer definitions and enforcement tools. The commission did not set a date for the next work session at the meeting.

Additional context: The proposed ordinance grew out of multiple previous work sessions and public discussion earlier in the year. Supporters of limiting motorized devices cited trail safety and environmental protection; supporters of more permissive rules cited connectivity and accessibility for users who depend on electric assist for mobility.