Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation E Motorcycles topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears first reading of electric-motorcycle ordinance to clarify local rules
Summary
On June 22 the Enumclaw City Council heard a first reading of Ordinance 2839, a proposed municipal code chapter that would define and restrict electric motorcycles, prohibit their use on sidewalks and trails, set equipment and operator requirements, and authorize enforcement measures; staff said the city attorney reviewed the draft.
Get email alerts on the Transportation E Motorcycles topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Enumclaw City Council on June 22 received a staff report and the first reading of Ordinance 2839, a proposed municipal code chapter aimed at regulating electric motorcycles.
The city’s public safety chief told the council electric motorcycles — including high-powered electric dirt bikes — have been used on streets, sidewalks and multi-use trails and are not currently treated as a distinct vehicle class in the Enumclaw Municipal Code. The chief said staff has received resident complaints about unsafe speeds, operation on sidewalks, noise and near-miss incidents involving pedestrians.
According to the staff report, the ordinance would: define electric motorcycles and distinguish them from e‑bikes and mopeds based on power and speed; restrict use on sidewalks, parks and multi-use trails unless expressly authorized; require helmets and lighting consistent with state law; set operator requirements (including a valid driver’s license for roadway use and age limits where appropriate); establish minimum safety equipment and give enforcement options such as warnings, citations and, for repeat or egregious cases, impoundment.
The chief said recent state legislation highlighted a regulatory gap; the staff report referenced a state work group and cited “gross substitute senate bill 61 10” as creating a need for statewide rulemaking (as phrased in the staff presentation). The staff report also noted the city attorney has reviewed the proposed language and that the Public Safety Committee recommended moving the ordinance forward.
This was a first reading; councilmembers were invited to offer additional comments at a second reading. No adoption vote was taken at the June 22 meeting.
The matter will return for further consideration at a subsequent council meeting, where council could amend wording or set public hearing dates as required by municipal code.
