Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the E Bike Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public Safety Committee recommends e-bike, scooter ordinance to full board after chart and enforcement clarifications
Summary
The Brentwood Public Safety Committee on Jan. 28 reviewed a proposed ordinance regulating e-bikes, mini-bikes and motorized scooters, asked for clearer chart language (particularly whether 'electric bicycles' meant Class 1 and 2 only), agreed parents could face a summons for juvenile violations, and voted to send the draft to the full Board of Aldermen for consideration.
The Brentwood Public Safety Committee voted Jan. 28 to recommend a draft ordinance to the full Board of Aldermen that would regulate electric bicycles, mini-bikes, motorized scooters and similar devices, while asking staff to clarify chart language and enforcement options.
The committee’s discussion focused on three areas: agent/license restrictions, a new penalty that would allow citing a parent or guardian if a juvenile violates the ordinance, and time-and-place restrictions for different device classifications. Members repeatedly flagged a chart included with the draft as unclear about whether the phrase “electric bicycles” was meant to cover only Class 1 and 2 e-bikes and to exclude Class 3 from sidewalk operation. “Because then Class 3 is not allowed on your sidewalks,” the chair said while prompting clarification of the draft language.
Committee members also discussed enforcement language. Officer Sullivan told the committee the parent penalty was intended to be a summons to Brentwood Court: “My understanding of it, it was a summons to court,” he said, describing the mechanism as equivalent to a traffic summons for allowing a juvenile to violate the ordinance. Members urged that the ordinance explicitly reflect that intent (summons rather than a noncourt citation).
Several members suggested attaching the chart as an appendix or otherwise syncing the chart language directly with the ordinance text, so the operational rules are not left ambiguous during enforcement. Committee members also requested staff confirm whether motorized alternative vehicles that require a valid driver’s license should be allowed on sidewalks; the current draft and chart gave the appearance of inconsistent entries for some vehicle types.
After discussion and suggested edits, the committee moved to recommend the ordinance to the full board for consideration. The motion passed on a roll-call vote; members present voted to forward the draft with the expectation staff will coordinate code edits, clarify the chart (including explicit references to Class 1 and 2), and prepare outreach materials for schools and the public if the board advances the ordinance.
Next steps: staff will work with the city attorney to revise the draft for clarity (including removing obsolete references in related code tables), and the full Board of Aldermen will consider the ordinance at a future meeting.
