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 regulate electric motorcycles in Enumclaw
Summary
At its June 22 meeting the council heard a staff report and first reading of Ordinance 2,839, which would define and regulate electric motorcycles, restrict sidewalk and park operation, require equipment and licensing standards, and create enforcement penalties; staff recommended adoption at a later reading.
The Enumclaw City Council held a first reading on June 22 of Ordinance 2,839, a proposed municipal code chapter that would regulate electric motorcycles, including high-powered electric dirt bikes, and clarify where those vehicles may be lawfully operated.
The police chief (staff) told the council that electric motorcycles have become more common and that the current municipal code does not clearly address them. The chief said the 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.”
Staff counsel and the chief recommended the ordinance to define electric motorcycles, distinguish them from e-bikes and mopeds by power output and speed capability, restrict operation on sidewalks, parks and multi-use trails unless specifically authorized, and require licensing, lighting and minimum safety equipment for roadway use. The chief also said the ordinance would create enforcement options, including warnings, citations, impound for repeat or egregious cases, and misdemeanor classifications for certain violations.
The chief cited state-level work under what the transcript recorded as “gross substitute senate bill 61 10,” noting the state Department of Licensing will develop guidance through October 2027. The staff report said the proposed municipal language is intended to complement, not conflict with, state law and that the city attorney had reviewed the draft for statutory consistency.
Because this was a first reading, council members may propose amendments and comment further at the second reading; no vote on final adoption occurred at the June 22 meeting.
