Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Micromobility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council advances eMoto ordinance after debate over device definition
Summary
Clive City Council voted 5-0 on June 25 to advance Ordinance No. 1178, a revision to city rules for electric mobility devices, sending a version with a last-minute definitional tweak to third reading while members and a public safety advocate sparred over whether the city’s definition should be broader or more specific.
The Clive City Council on June 25 voted unanimously to advance Ordinance No. 1178—an update to the city’s personal transportation and mobility-device code—to a third reading after debate over how the city should define “eMoto.”
The ordinance, presented at second reading by the chief, keeps a threshold tied to a motor producing more than 750 watts and a top speed near 39 miles per hour while staff said a small change to the eMoto language was made earlier that day to preserve flexibility for future device types. "It still maintains the motor that produces more than the 750 watts ... and then the 39 mile per hour speed," the chief said while reviewing the draft.
The council heard a committee report from Council member Ted urging local action rather than waiting for a regional MPO model ordinance, noting residents want swift steps and that a higher-level definition gives officers room to adapt as devices evolve. "Our residents are demanding that we do something about this now," Ted said during his committee report.
Alex Ryce of The Street Collective, who identified herself as a nonprofit advocate for walking and biking in the Des Moines metro, urged a broader, national-style definition that would include moped‑speed motorized bicycles as eMotos for education and safety purposes. "What's in this ordinance for eMotos is actually more exclusive, and the kind of standard national definition is more inclusive," Ryce said, arguing a broader definition would better capture devices parents and safety officials worry about.
Council and staff discussed practical differences: staff said Iowa code currently contains no eMoto standard and that local language intentionally leaves room for future device types; Ryce and others said the city's narrower phrasing could confuse education and enforcement between mopeds and motorcycles.
After discussion, the council moved, seconded and voted to consider the ordinance for passage at a later meeting; staff clarified the version on the screen tonight does not include today’s late tweak and that the finalized wording will appear at third reading. The motion passed by a recorded vote of 5-0.
The council scheduled third consideration for the next meeting; staff said they expect to revisit definitions and enforcement language as state or regional standards evolve.
