Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Electric Motocycles topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Enumclaw council hears first reading of ordinance to regulate electric motorcycles
Summary
At its June 22 meeting the Enumclaw City Council held the first reading of Ordinance 2839, which would define and restrict high‑powered electric motorcycles, designate where they may be used, and set operator and equipment requirements; staff said the measure is intended to fill a regulatory gap until state rules arrive.
The Enumclaw City Council on June 22 heard a staff report and conducted the first reading of Ordinance 2839, a proposed addition to the municipal code defining and regulating electric motorcycles.
Police Chief (staff) told the council that high‑powered electric motorcycles and off‑road electric dirt bikes have increasingly been used on city streets, sidewalks and multi‑use trails and that Enumclaw’s municipal code currently does not distinguish those vehicles from e‑bikes and mopeds. "This regulatory gap creates ambiguity for riders, law enforcement, and the community regarding where and how these vehicles may be lawfully operated," the Chief said during the staff report.
Staff recommended the ordinance define electric motorcycles by power output, speed capability and design; prohibit operation on sidewalks, parks and multi‑use trails unless specifically authorized; require helmets consistent with state law; require lighting and minimum safety equipment for roadway use; and require a valid driver’s license and age limits for roadway operation. The proposal also would create a framework for warnings, citations, vehicle impound and misdemeanor classifications for repeat or egregious cases.
The Chief told the council that recent state legislation requires a Department of Licensing work group to develop state regulations and guidance; staff cited "gross substitute Senate Bill 6110," which establishes a work group with a due date of October 2027. The ordinance is intended to "complement, not conflict with, state law," the Chief said.
Because this was a first reading, council did not vote to adopt the ordinance Tuesday. The Mayor noted that councilmembers could provide additional input before a second reading and final action.
Next steps: Ordinance 2839 will return for additional review and a second reading at a future meeting; no implementation timeline or enforcement schedule was adopted at the June 22 session.
