The Parks and Recreation Commission and the Open Space Conservancy Trust on Jan. 8 reviewed a staff proposal to restrict e‑bike and e‑scooter use in Mercer Island parks and open spaces, but chose to delay sending a recommendation to the City Council after public testimony and detailed questioning about enforcement, trail exceptions and community outreach.

Amelia Chaden, management analyst, told the joint session that the council had directed staff in May 2025 to develop an ordinance regulating e‑bikes and e‑motorcycles. "Under state law, an e‑bike means a bicycle with either 2 or 3 wheels that has a saddle, fully operative pedals, and an electric motor with a power output that does not exceed 750 watts," Chaden said, outlining the three e‑bike classes (Class 1 and 2 assist to 20 mph; Class 3 assists to 28 mph) and the staff recommendation.

The proposal would prohibit Class 1 and Class 2 e‑bikes and lawful e‑scooters from parks and open spaces except on paved trails (defined in staff materials as asphalt, concrete, brick and stone pavers) and would prohibit Class 3 e‑bikes from parks and open spaces entirely. Chaden said the policy was modeled on King County rules and consistent with WSDOT, Seattle and Bellevue approaches for shared regional trails.

Members of the public and local advocates urged the boards to narrow or rethink the restriction. "I'm opposed to any e‑bike ban in the parks," said Ben Sharp, a Mercer Island resident, who said his children rely on Class 1 e‑bikes for safe access to parks and schools and recounted an incident in which his children were harassed. Jeff Kuntz of Neighbors in Motion said limiting Class 1 and 2 e‑bikes on certain trails would hurt commuters using the I‑90 Mountains to Sound Trail and recommended speed limits, clearer signage and helmet encouragement instead.

Mercer Island Police Department Commander Seifert told commissioners that enforcement practicality must guide policy choices. "Without enforcement, the rules don't really exist," he said, explaining that radar speed enforcement on bicycles is difficult and that most department complaints are linked to larger vehicles sold as e‑bikes (so‑called e‑motorcycles). He added that officers often rely on labeling and observable performance to distinguish bike classes and that enforcement is typically reactive — responding to calls rather than proactively patrolling most park trails.

Commissioners pressed staff and the police for more data and clarity. Questions focused on whether the city should (1) treat Class 3 e‑bikes differently from Class 1/2, (2) restrict Class 1/2 to paved trails only, (3) identify specific connector or commuter routes that should be exempted from prohibitions, and (4) how enforcement and signage would work in practice. Council member Reynolds asked whether the Mercer Island School District had been consulted; Ryan Daley, recreation manager, said district staff had been contacted and "expressed their support for the policy as currently written and stated that they intend to adopt the same policy for e‑bikes and e‑scooters at the South Mercer Playfield once the policy has received formal city council action."

Several commissioners urged additional outreach and more granular analysis before forwarding anything to council. Commissioners suggested producing a bike connectivity map, clarifying the definition of "paved" (to avoid ambiguous terms such as "stone" versus chipped rock), and identifying narrow or environmentally sensitive trails (ravines, boardwalks, wetlands) that might warrant special restrictions. Multiple commissioners recommended breaking the issue into parts (resolve Class 3 policy first, then evaluate Class 1/2 and exceptions) and asked staff to gather usage data and examples from neighboring jurisdictions.

Staff recommended that the commission draft a handoff memo to City Council that could include recommended exceptions or further work‑plan items and noted that enforcement mechanisms and penalties would be decided at the council level. Chaden said staff would return with additional information, including state park policies and the legal constraints on the I‑90 segments (some Aubrey Davis Park areas are owned by WSDOT), and that a future Council process would include additional community engagement.

The boards did not take a formal vote. Chair Ashley Hay closed the meeting after leadership signaled consensus to pause and request more information: commissioners nodded in agreement to ‘‘pause this and get more information, keep the conversation going.’’ The meeting was adjourned at 6:57 p.m.

What happens next: staff will prepare supplemental materials for the boards, including comparisons to neighboring jurisdictions, incident data where available, and a proposed trail‑by‑trail approach or mapping. Any ordinance would still require study‑session and readings before the City Council, where the public would have further opportunities to comment.