Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Micromobility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council deadlocks on scooter ordinance; motion to reconsider and table to future session approved
Summary
An ordinance to update North Bend’s motorized foot scooter rules failed to clear the four-vote threshold required for ordinance adoption on Oct. 7, 2025; the council unanimously voted to reconsider and then to table the item so staff can draft an alternative ordinance.
The City Council did not adopt AB 25-108, an ordinance that would have amended North Bend Municipal Code chapter 10.20 for motorized foot scooters, because the proposal failed to receive the four affirmative votes required for ordinances.
The ordinance, introduced by staff, proposed several changes: lower the lawful age to operate a motorized foot scooter from 16 to 12, reduce the maximum lawful speed from 25 mph to 15 mph, allow use of motorized foot scooters on sidewalks and public trails, and add impoundment and penalties for violations. The draft would maintain existing helmet requirements and prohibit carrying passengers.
City staff (Mr. Henderson) summarized the ordinance’s committee history: initial direction at a July 22 work study, review by the Council Public Health & Safety Committee (Aug. 5) and a Sept. 23 work study that led to the draft presented to council on Oct. 7.
Council debate was divided. Council member Rustic said the change was an effort to “help make our youth safe and the public safe” and described early improvements in helmet use after public discussion. Council member Collin urged caution, but Council member Collin (speaking separately as a nurse at Harborview Medical Center) announced she would not support the ordinance, saying, “I will not be passing this ordinance tonight, and, I'm going to tell you why. I don't like the way it's currently written because I believe 12 year olds are too young to have the insight to know what consequences could happen to them or someone else if there is an accident.” Council member Torres also opposed lowering the age to 12, citing limited sidewalks in town and safety concerns.
After a vote on first-and-final reading, the clerk announced the motion carried 3–2 in favor; the city attorney then clarified that an ordinance requires four affirmative votes to pass, so the measure failed. A motion to reconsider the council’s vote was made by Alan Gothel, seconded by Christina Rustic; the council voted unanimously to reconsider. The council then adopted an alternative motion (alternative 2) to table AB 25-108 to a future city council session and directed staff to draft an alternative ordinance; that motion passed unanimously.
Council members who spoke emphasized that the draft was not perfect and that the intent was to balance youth mobility, public safety and enforceability. Staff said the alternative would return to council for additional guidance and possible amendments.
The specific code changes in the draft included amending NBMC 10.20.020 (general requirements and operation) and adopting NBMC 10.20.050 (impoundment and penalties) as presented to the council; because the ordinance did not receive the required four votes, those code amendments were not adopted and will be the subject of the future item.
