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 proposed electric-motorcycle ordinance
Summary
On first reading, the council reviewed Ordinance No. 2,839 to define and restrict electric motorcycles (distinct from e-bikes), require safety equipment and licensing, and allow enforcement tools; staff said state legislation is also moving forward.
The Enumclaw City Council took the first step on June 22 toward regulating electric motorcycles, reading Ordinance No. 2,839 by title and hearing a staff report on proposed definitions, operating restrictions and enforcement options.
Police staff explained that high-powered electric motorcycles and similar vehicles are increasingly used on city streets, sidewalks and multi-use trails and that the Enumclaw Municipal Code does not currently distinguish them from e-bikes or mopeds. The chief told the council staff had received resident complaints about unsafe speeds, sidewalk operation and noise and that "Without clear municipal regulations, enforcement is inconsistent and public safety risks increased." Staff recommended adopting a new code chapter to define electric motorcycles by power output and speed capability, restrict use areas (prohibiting operation on sidewalks, parks and multi-use trails unless authorized), require helmets and lighting consistent with state law, set operator requirements including a valid driver's license for roadway operation, and provide enforcement options ranging from warnings to vehicle impoundment for repeat or egregious violations.
The chief also told the council that recent state legislation — referenced in the transcript as "gross substitute senate bill 61 10" — has prompted a Department of Licensing work group and that state-level rulemaking is due in October 2027, reinforcing the need for local clarity in the interim. The city's attorney reviewed the proposed ordinance language for consistency with applicable statutes.
This was a first reading; councilmembers may propose amendments at second reading. No formal council vote occurred on the ordinance at the June 22 meeting.
