Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Ebikes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
River Falls holds first reading on e-bike and e-scooter ordinance amid enforcement and equipment questions
Summary
At a June 23 first reading, the council reviewed a proposed ordinance creating Chapter 10.21 to govern electric bicycles and scooters, discussing state class definitions and sticker requirements, operator age for class‑3 bikes, reflector/lamp specs and practical enforcement limits; stakeholders and police offered technical input.
The River Falls Common Council on June 23 held a first reading of Ordinance 2026‑14, which would create Chapter 10.21 addressing electric bicycles and electric scooters. Sergeant Ben Anderson and staff walked council members through definitions tied to state statute and enforcement approaches.
Sergeant Ben Anderson cited state statute 347.49 in response to council questions about equipment labeling and enforcement: "State statute 347.49 ... does require a sticker" marking an e‑bike class, he said, and noted that a tampered label or a motor exceeding 750 watts would be treated as a motor vehicle violation. Council Member Downey had asked whether a modified bike would require a new sticker; Anderson and staff indicated that officers would treat tampering or modifications that exceed statutory thresholds as violations.
The council discussed practical enforcement limitations in a small department, identification challenges and operator age rules. Council members noted that class 1/2/3 definitions are set by state law and that class‑3 operations are limited to riders 16 and older; staff said no driver's license is required for class‑3 operation. The ordinance intentionally relies in part on state definitions while including local equipment standards to give officers tools to address safety problems.
Council Member Page and others raised technical details for equipment standards. Council Member Page highlighted ambiguous language on rear reflectors in the draft (rectangular vs. round sizes). Stakeholder Matt Johnson, owner of The Garage Bikes and Brews, told the council that common manufacturer practice typically provides front and rear reflectors or tail/head lights and suggested clarifying minimum dimensions that are actually available in the market.
Wider context: councilmembers said they did not intend to create an enforcement task force and acknowledged there may be few opportunities to test the rules given staffing levels. Staff said the draft balanced enforceability and feasibility and that further clarification of equipment dimensions could be made before second reading.
The first reading concluded with questions but no vote; council members may amend language (for example, clarifying reflector dimensions or adding a 'most restrictive' clause regarding state changes) before the second reading.
End note: staff and police stressed that the ordinance is meant to provide officers with tools to address clear abuses and safety risks, not to criminalize ordinary, law‑abiding riders.
