The Snoqualmie City Council on Oct. 27 took up a staff-drafted ordinance to define and regulate high-power electric motorcycles after a summer of calls about noise, reckless riding and unsafe operation.

Interim police leadership presented a draft that would define an "electric motorcycle" for municipal purposes as a motor-driven cycle powered by an electric motor that lacks functioning pedals and has an output over 750 watts or provides continuous assistance above 28 mph. The draft would prohibit operation on sidewalks, trails and in city park open spaces, require state registration and a drivers license with a motorcycle endorsement for street operation, and require helmets meeting the federal motor-vehicle helmet standard referenced in the draft.

The ordinance draft includes enforcement tools: impoundment via contracted tow companies (rather than long-term city storage), a three-tier fine schedule for ordinance violations (proposed first offense $250, second $500, third $750) and a parental-liability clause that would permit charges when a parent or guardian knowingly permits a minor to violate the chapter. Staff said similar ordinances have been adopted recently by neighboring jurisdictions, and that impoundment is often handled by tow contractors to avoid long-term city storage of vehicles with titles and VINs.

"These devices can be reprogrammed to go much faster than their rated speeds," an interim police representative told council, arguing officers need clear definitions and tools to address quiet, dirt‑bike–style electric motorcycles used by youth on sidewalks and downtown. Councilors pressed staff about the difference between treating violations as traffic infractions versus criminal charges. "If it's a traffic infraction, there would be no criminal charges unless there is an additional charge," Councilor Holloway said. Staff said the draft intends to rely on infractions and the municipal court process for penalties but can preserve authority to pursue criminal charges for distinct offenses such as reckless driving.

Council discussion also covered private-property use (draft does not prohibit operation on private property with owner permission), passenger restrictions (a proposed prohibition on passengers on e‑motorcycles to reduce injury risk), helmet standards and whether to align language exactly with neighboring ordinances for enforcement clarity. Councilors asked staff to revise wording to emphasize infractions/nonmoving violations where appropriate, clarify the definitions of "city property" versus "public property," and confirm how the draft would interact with state RCWs governing vehicle equipment and licensing.

Staff said they would make drafting changes and return to council with an ordinance for formal consideration. Several councilors noted they favored a public education period before enforcement and recommended alignment with nearby jurisdictions where possible to reduce enforcement confusion.

What happens next: staff will revise the draft ordinance language based on council feedback and bring the ordinance forward for formal readings.