Urbandale chief proposes ordinance to limit high‑power e‑vehicles on trails, allow low‑power devices on sidewalks

Police Chief Dragonson presented draft revisions to Urbandale’s municipal code July 7 that would expand the bicycle ordinance to a new category of "personal transportation devices," define device eligibility by motor power and create local restrictions for safety and enforcement.

Chief Dragonson told the council the key threshold is motor power: "if it has a motor of 750 watts or less, it can be operated on our trails and sidewalks," he said, adding that most e‑motorcycles and off‑road electric motorcycles exceed that threshold and therefore would remain prohibited from trails, sidewalks and green space. The draft would also prohibit devices that use fuel motors on those routes and would allow the city to post signs restricting device operation in high‑pedestrian districts such as downtown.

Other provisions in the draft: the chief suggested a 20‑mile‑per‑hour benchmark for trail and sidewalk operation consistent with neighboring cities, a requirement that personal electronics be mounted or used hands‑free while operating a device, and a yield‑to‑pedestrians rule for devices on shared infrastructure. For enforcement, the draft allows civil penalties (the chief said civil fines could be up to $750 for a first offense and higher on repeat offenses) and described a discretionary approach for juveniles—officers would make parental contact and issue warnings for first offenses, with citations possible on subsequent stops.

Council reaction and next steps: Members discussed the difficulty of enforcement and the need for public education. Councilors asked about coordinating the draft with other metro jurisdictions and the regional MPO; the chief said staff will share the draft with MPO contacts and the Bicycle Coalition for feedback. Chief Dragonson said the item will return for an ordinance first reading at the next council meeting.

What this means: The draft takes a device‑agnostic approach by using a motor‑power cap rather than enumerating device names. That makes enforcement more straightforward in the chief’s view but leaves open practical issues such as modified devices and ways to educate families about prohibited equipment.