Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the E Motorcycles topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears first reading of electric-motorcycle ordinance to restrict use on sidewalks and trails
Summary
City staff presented Ordinance No. 2839 to define and regulate electric motorcycles (high‑powered electric dirt bikes), proposing restrictions on sidewalks, parks and trails, operator requirements and enforcement; the ordinance was read by title for first reading and received a staff recommendation to adopt.
The Enumclaw City Council on June 22 held the first reading of Ordinance No. 2839, a proposed municipal code chapter to define and regulate electric motorcycles, including higher‑powered electric dirt bikes that have been operated on streets and pedestrian areas.
City staff told the council the city currently lacks a clear municipal definition separating electric motorcycles from e-bikes and mopeds, creating enforcement uncertainty. The title of Ordinance No. 2839 was read aloud for the first reading and staff recommended adopting a new chapter to provide clarity.
The Police Chief presented the staff report, saying the ordinance would establish a definition based on power output, speed capability and design and would: prohibit operation of electric motorcycles on sidewalks, in parks and on multi‑use trails except where specifically authorized; require helmets consistent with state law; require appropriate lighting and safety equipment for roadway use; and set operator requirements including a valid driver's license for roadway operation and age limits where appropriate. The staff report also proposed enforcement options ranging from warnings to citations and vehicle impoundment for repeat or egregious offenses.
Staff referenced recent state legislation and a Department of Licensing work group with a due date of October 2027 to develop state-level regulations. The chief said the city attorney reviewed the proposed language to reduce conflict with state law and that the ordinance is intended to complement, not conflict with, state rules.
This was a first reading; councilmembers were reminded that additional comments are allowed before a second reading. No final council vote occurred on Ordinance No. 2839 during the June 22 meeting.
