Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Emotorcycles topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Enumclaw council hears first reading of ordinance to regulate electric motorcycles
Summary
Council heard a staff report and first reading of Ordinance No. 2839 to define and restrict high-powered electric motorcycles, with staff citing public-safety and enforcement gaps and state legislation prompting local regulation.
Enumclaw’s City Council on June 22 heard the first reading of Ordinance No. 2839, a proposed new municipal code chapter aimed at defining and restricting the use of high‑powered electric motorcycles in the city.
In a staff presentation, the police chief said electric motorcycles — including high‑powered dirt bikes often used off‑road — are increasingly operated on public streets, sidewalks and multiuse trails, creating enforcement ambiguity and safety risks. “These vehicles are often marketed as recreational or off‑road use devices, but are frequently operated on public streets, sidewalks, and multi use trails within city limits,” the chief told the council during the staff report.
The draft ordinance would create a distinct category for electric motorcycles, separate them from e‑bikes and mopeds based on power output and speed capability, and set where they may be operated. It would prohibit operation on sidewalks, parks and multiuse trails unless specifically authorized; require lighting, safety equipment and helmets consistent with state law for roadway operation; and set operator requirements, including valid driver’s licenses and age restrictions where appropriate. The measure would also establish enforcement options ranging from warnings and citations to impoundment for repeat or egregious violations.
Staff cited recent state action — described in the presentation as “gross substitute senate bill 61 10” — that creates a Department of Licensing work group to develop statewide rules and set an October 2027 work deadline. The chief said the local ordinance is intended to “complement, not conflict with, state law” by addressing gaps the state framework leaves to municipalities.
The ordinance was introduced by title only at first reading; councilmembers may offer amendments or request additional language at the second reading. No vote was taken on the ordinance at the June 22 meeting; the matter will return for further council consideration.
