St. Helens council advances work on ordinance to allow street-legal side-by-sides, asks staff to tighten safety and enforcement language

Mayor opened a work-session discussion of a proposed ordinance to allow street-legal side-by-sides to operate on St. Helens streets, saying constituents had repeatedly requested the change and that the draft incorporates safety and insurance input from Sheriff Pixley and Chief Smith.

The mayor said he researched other municipalities and noted the county and nearby cities are moving on similar rules. He told council the draft requires vehicles to be ORS-street-legal with required signals and insurance, and that it includes safety provisions such as helmets, restraints and equipment standards. “I have 0 interest myself in operating a side by side in the city,” the mayor said, adding he brought the draft to respond to constituent demand.

Council members raised several substantive concerns. One councilor asked why the ordinance would set an 18-and-older minimum when Oregon allows 16-year-olds with licenses to drive many vehicles; several members said they were open to modifying the age threshold. Another councilor highlighted that the draft omitted car-seat language and asked the city to specify child-restraint requirements for passengers. Multiple members pointed out ambiguous phrasing on “daylight hours,” recommending the ordinance require headlights or lighting at night rather than rely on a daylight definition that could invite disputes.

Chief Smith and others described safety considerations; Chief Smith had reviewed the draft for liability and suggested additional insurance and equipment language. The mayor said he had consulted his insurance carrier about liability coverage and that requirements mirror standard vehicle insurance. Councilors discussed enforcement pathways—whether violations would be handled under state law or via a city-coded infraction tied to a municipal permit—and raised concerns about administrative workload for tracking permits and repeat offenders.

Council members suggested limiting continuous travel on Highway 30 (allowing crossings but not cruising along the highway), adding specific distance limits, and clarifying where a side-by-side may operate within the city. Several councilors also discussed how to treat permit fees and suspension for repeat violations; one councilor noted Rainier’s approach that included progressive penalties for repeat offenders.

Outcome and next steps: Council expressed general openness to the concept but asked the city administrator and counsel to revise the draft. Staff were directed to address three high-priority items—explicit car-seat/child-restraint language, reconsideration or justification for the 18-or-older provision, and clearer wording about night vs. daylight operation—and to return a revised draft with legal review at a future meeting. The council did not vote on the ordinance at the work session.

The mayor and several councilors emphasized they will coordinate stakeholder input (sheriff, police, DMV/state guidance) before bringing a revised ordinance back to council.

Ending: The council set a staff-driven revision and legal review as the next procedural step and indicated a return to council by early January for additional review.