Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Electric Motorcycles topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears first reading of ordinance to define and regulate electric motorcycles
Summary
At first reading on June 22, the council heard staff report recommending a new municipal code chapter to define and regulate electric motorcycles — distinguishing them from e-bikes, restricting sidewalk and trail use, requiring helmets and equipment, and setting enforcement penalties. Staff cited resident complaints and forthcoming state rulemaking.
The Enumclaw City Council held a first reading on June 22 of Ordinance No. 2839, which would establish a municipal code chapter defining and regulating electric motorcycles, including high-powered electric dirt bikes.
In a staff report, the police chief said the city has received resident complaints about unsafe speeds, operation on sidewalks and trails, noise and near misses involving pedestrians. The chief told the council that “Currently, Enumclaw Municipal Code does not specifically address electric motorcycles as a distinct vehicle category,” and that the proposed ordinance aims to close that regulatory gap.
The ordinance, as presented in the first reading, would set a definition for electric motorcycles distinct from e-bikes and mopeds based on power output and speed capability; restrict operation on sidewalks, parks and multiuse trails unless expressly authorized; require helmets and minimum lighting and safety equipment for roadway operation; and set operator requirements such as a valid driver’s license for roadway use and age limits where appropriate. The draft also includes enforcement options ranging from warnings to citations and impoundment for repeat or egregious offenses.
Staff referenced recent state legislation and a work group at the Department of Licensing, noting the transcript reference to substitute Senate Bill 6110 and an October 2027 work-group due date for state guidance. The staff presentation said the city attorney reviewed the proposed language to reduce conflicts with state statutes.
This was presented as a first reading; councilmembers were told they may comment further at second reading. No vote was taken to adopt the ordinance at the June 22 meeting.
