Hooper council reviews enforcement, draft ordinance after rise in motorized use of parks and detention basins

Hooper City Council discussed how to enforce existing prohibitions on motorized vehicles in parks and on trails after police and staff reported more motorcycles, e-bikes and other powered devices operating on city property.

Lieutenant Slater told the council staff found a “no trespassing” sign at the property near 5100 South and 5500 West and saw motorbikes and jump hills built adjacent to a slough that creates a state-controlled waterway and a roughly 100-foot easement. He said the state has become involved and the city will need a state permit before removing the jump hills. Staff located the homeowner who built the features and told the family the city intends to remove them, but Slater said contact with the state permitting staff was delayed because the staff contact had a personal emergency.

Why it matters: Council members said the activity raises safety, erosion and liability concerns and creates recurring property damage to detention basins and park facilities. Staff said clearer local rules would give law enforcement ‘‘some teeth’’ when responding to complaints and make enforcement fairer and more consistent.

Slater and staff recommended directing the city attorney to draft updated language clarifying permitted and prohibited uses of parks, trails and retention basins. Council members generally supported sending the newsletter language drafted by staff that urges residents to report prohibited uses; the newsletter would describe the city’s definition of the problem as “mechanically aided propulsion,” listing motorcycles, scooters, assisted bikes, go-karts, ATVs/UTVs and similar devices. Slater said the draft newsletter is planned for distribution the week after the meeting, subject to council concurrence.

Council and staff debated how to treat pedal‑assist e-bikes and small battery-powered scooters. Slater noted state definitions vary and enforcement can be difficult: if a vehicle has pedals or is being pedaled at the time of a complaint, officers may not be able to prove a motor was in use when the incident occurred. Council member Bryce Wilcox and others proposed possible technical fixes such as speed limits, but Slater said speed limits on trails would be difficult to enforce without targeted enforcement or equipment.

Insurance and permitting questions also shaped the discussion. Staff reported the city’s insurer advised against permitting jumps or formally licensing motorized-jump facilities on city property because the city cannot guarantee construction and maintenance standards. That, together with the state’s control over the adjacent waterway, increases the hurdles to a municipal fix that would allow jumps or motorized features on city land.

Council members suggested complementary, nonregulatory measures: better signage (including QR codes linking to full park rules), ‘‘defensive architecture’’ at some trailheads to slow motorized access, and more visible public education. Staff said some trailheads already post “no motorized vehicles” signs but that language can be broad and unclear about whether small pedal-assist devices are included.

The discussion did not include a formal vote. Staff will work with the city attorney on proposed ordinance language clarifying appropriate park and trail use and will proceed with the newsletter outreach unless the council objects. Staff also said they will pursue the state permit needed to remove the built jump hills.

The council closed the item noting enforcement will likely include education first, then targeted citations when warranted, and that a clear local ordinance would improve consistency and defensibility in court.