Castle Pines studies new rules for e‑bikes, off‑highway vehicles; sheriff signals enforcement support

Assistant City Attorney Evan King presented a draft ordinance to the City Council on March 24 that would regulate off‑highway vehicles and low‑speed electric vehicles in Castle Pines, citing provisions adapted from other municipalities and local enforcement conversations. King told the council that he and staff had “talked to the sheriff’s office” and that deputies were “happy to enforce it for us,” while acknowledging formal incident statistics were limited and the state bill on the issue had failed.

Council members pressed on several core elements of the draft. King outlined a parental‑responsibility clause that would make parents or legal guardians liable when a minor operates an off‑highway vehicle in city rights‑of‑way, and proposed a mandatory minimum fine copied from another jurisdiction. Council members asked about court discretion, how the minimum would interact with plea processes and whether the minimum was consistent with other municipal penalties. King said the ordinance can set municipal minimums and maximums while remaining subject to state limits.

Insurance proved the most contested provision. King proposed requiring either a motor‑vehicle liability policy or a certificate of self‑insurance for these vehicles; some council members responded strongly that mandating a new endorsement would be “superfluous” and could raise premiums for families, while others emphasized victim protection if a pedestrian is struck. King summarized the consensus and said he would remove the insurance requirement for the ordinance’s first reading: “I will remove that for your 1st reading, and then we can always add it back in,” he said.

On enforcement tools, the draft would create a distinct offense for willfully eluding officers in an off‑highway vehicle and authorize the sheriff to impound vehicles when probable cause exists, with storage fees and an empowerment fee to be set by resolution. Council members asked staff to confirm operational details with the sheriff’s office — including whether impoundment storage, sale after extended periods, and booting options are practical — and to clarify due‑process and fee schedules.

King also proposed aligning reckless and careless‑driving language with model traffic code definitions, distinguishing penalties where injury occurs, and requiring helmets for operators under 18 (with eye protection considerations discussed). On low‑speed electric vehicles (street‑legal LSVs), he recommended including a driver‑license requirement and child‑restraint/seat‑belt rules limited to vehicles originally equipped with those restraints. King closed by promising a revised ordinance and staff answers to outstanding enforcement questions prior to the first reading.

The study session produced direction rather than final votes: staff will produce a revised ordinance for first reading that omits the insurance mandate and that incorporates model‑code language and clarified impoundment provisions after consultation with the sheriff.