City Council Services, Safety & Parks Committee · Tuesday, September 30, 2025 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

City Council Services, Safety & Parks Committee Regular Meeting, July 22, 2025

packet pp.5–6

Topics: ParksPublic Safety

▶ Watch from 1:36 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 07-22-25 City Council Services, Safety & Parks Page (0000) Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Services, Safety & Parks Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. July 22, 2025 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

City Council Services, Safety & Parks Committee Special Meeting, August 26

packet pp.7–8

Topics: ParksPublic Safety

▶ Watch from 8:17 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES b) 08-26-25 City Council Services, Safety & Parks Page (0000) Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Services, Safety & Parks Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. August 26, 2025 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

E-Bike Briefing COM 0180

30 min · Paula Schwan, Police Chief · packet pp.9–24

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 0:44 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration recommends: 1. Develop city code to define and regulate e-motorcycle use by minors and on public streets 2. Add support for efforts to better define and regulate e-motorcycle use in state law to the legislative policy manual.

Water Leak Adjustment Policy COM 0174

45 min · Kristin Garcia, Finance Director · packet pp.25–44

Topics: Water

▶ Watch from 1:05 Open packet at p.25 ↗

Staff report:

Review the policy and provide Administration with any desired modifications, prior to forwarding the policy and ordinance to the full City Council for consideration.

1272 segments .txt ↗

0:08 ↗ Welcome everyone. I council member Tom

0:10 ↗ Martz call the

0:14 ↗ I see sorry.

0:17 ↗ Welcome everyone. I council member Tom

0:19 ↗ Marts call the September 30th, 2025 city

0:24 ↗ council services, safety and parks

0:26 ↗ committee to order.

0:28 ↗ Uh there are first up first up is public

0:32 ↗ comment. There are multiple public

0:33 ↗ comment opportunities at tonight's

0:35 ↗ meeting. There is a general public

0:37 ↗ comment opportunity at the beginning of

0:38 ↗ the meeting or you can make comments

0:41 ↗ after the presentation and council

0:42 ↗ question and answer period on each of

0:44 ↗ tonight's two agenda items. Members of

0:47 ↗ the public may address council at this

0:49 ↗ time in person or virtually. Those who

0:50 ↗ have signed up in advance to make

0:52 ↗ comments will be called on first. If you

0:53 ↗ are joining us virtually and would like

0:55 ↗ to make comments, please raise your

0:57 ↗ virtual hand. If you're on the phone,

0:59 ↗ press star three. If you have joined by

1:01 ↗ computer or smartphone, look for a hand

1:03 ↗ icon. This varies by device. One option

1:06 ↗ may be to go to the participant panel

1:08 ↗ and choose the raise hand icon in the

1:11 ↗ lower right hand corner. If you're in

1:12 ↗ the room and did not sign up, I will ask

1:14 ↗ for other speakers before closing this

1:16 ↗ portion of the meeting. We'll wait for a

1:17 ↗ moment to see if anyone wishes to raise

1:19 ↗ their hand.

1:22 ↗ Clerk, has anyone signed up to speak or

1:23 ↗ indicated a desire to speak this

1:25 ↗ evening?

1:26 ↗ >> No, chair, not at this time.

1:28 ↗ >> As a reminder, written comments can be

1:30 ↗ submitted at any time to city council at

1:33 ↗ isiqua.gov.

1:36 ↗ Next up, we have approval of the minutes

1:39 ↗ and uh the way that we have been doing

1:42 ↗ it lately, I will ask if there are any

1:44 ↗ concerns with the minutes. Otherwise, we

1:47 ↗ will consider them uh approved by

1:48 ↗ acclamation.

1:50 ↗ Seeing seeing no comment, uh those are

1:53 ↗ uh approved by acclamation

1:56 ↗ uh both the July 22nd and the August

2:01 ↗ 26th because they are both on the

2:04 ↗ approval list. Uh next up our agenda and

2:07 ↗ we are going to uh uh choose a slightly

2:10 ↗ different path through it at this

2:11 ↗ moment. Uh, so we're going to start with

2:13 ↗ the second item, COOM0174,

2:16 ↗ water leak adjustment policy, presented

2:18 ↗ by Kristen Garcia, finance director.

2:55 ↗ All right. Thank you so much, uh, Chair

2:57 ↗ Marks, and good evening, committee, and

2:59 ↗ good evening to any members of the

3:01 ↗ public that may be viewing online

3:03 ↗ tonight. Um, I'm here to talk to the

3:06 ↗ committee about a proposed water leak

3:08 ↗ adjustment policy. Um, and before I get

3:11 ↗ started on the presentation, I just want

3:13 ↗ to give a big thank you to Gabby Wolf,

3:15 ↗ water operations manager. She was a

3:18 ↗ phenomenal team player in working with

3:20 ↗ me to help get this policy put together

3:22 ↗ and brought forward to you tonight. So,

3:24 ↗ thank you, Gabby, for all of her hard

3:25 ↗ work.

3:28 ↗ So the purpose of bringing this policy

3:31 ↗ forward is to formally codify the water

3:34 ↗ leak adjustment policy into Isqua

3:35 ↗ municipal code. Um as it is the policy

3:39 ↗ currently sits on the city's website but

3:41 ↗ it hasn't been formally adopted into the

3:43 ↗ municipal code and it's really a best

3:46 ↗ practice to formally adopt a policy to

3:48 ↗ provide better transparency and

3:50 ↗ accountability. We also want the policy

3:53 ↗ to address uh large leak anomalies. Um

3:56 ↗ in the past couple of months, we've had

3:59 ↗ some rare occurrences. Um the policy as

4:02 ↗ it currently is uh doesn't really

4:04 ↗ address um what we should do with those

4:08 ↗ um policies and um we've been evaluating

4:12 ↗ those on as requested on a case-byase

4:15 ↗ basis and that's potentially causing

4:18 ↗ some you know exceptions and

4:20 ↗ inconsistencies and so we want the

4:22 ↗ policy to address that and we also want

4:24 ↗ to bring into alignment with neighboring

4:26 ↗ jurisdictions.

4:30 ↗ So administration is seeking feedback on

4:33 ↗ the proposed water leak adjustment

4:35 ↗ policy and related ordinance.

4:40 ↗ So a little bit of background before I

4:42 ↗ get into the proposed policy. Um prior

4:44 ↗ to 2025, we didn't have a formal policy

4:47 ↗ to address address water water leak

4:49 ↗ adjustments. However, we did have a past

4:52 ↗ practice of uh granting water leak

4:55 ↗ adjustments. um we didn't have any

4:58 ↗ framework that we were using and so that

5:01 ↗ provided um some inconsistencies or

5:03 ↗ potential inconsistencies for how water

5:05 ↗ leak adjustments uh were applied. Um

5:09 ↗ since then in 2025 we did have a policy.

5:12 ↗ We put that on the website. Um it wasn't

5:14 ↗ formally adopted as I mentioned. Uh but

5:16 ↗ we found that that policy wasn't clearly

5:19 ↗ defined. Uh we found that it wasn't

5:21 ↗ necessarily in alignment with our

5:23 ↗ neighboring jurisdictions. And then we

5:25 ↗ also found when those large anomalies

5:28 ↗ came forward to us that the policy was

5:31 ↗ too restrictive and didn't really

5:33 ↗ consider what financial hardship might

5:36 ↗ be caused by limiting that adjustment to

5:39 ↗ the $1,000.

5:43 ↗ So a few considerations that went into

5:45 ↗ the policy development. First, we wanted

5:48 ↗ to minimize our audit risk. So, state

5:50 ↗ law limits us to we can't um loan

5:54 ↗ credit, meaning we can't be a financial

5:56 ↗ institution. We're also uh prohibited

5:59 ↗ from gifting of public funds. So, as we

6:02 ↗ considered um the elements that went

6:04 ↗ into policy, we wanted to make sure that

6:06 ↗ we were managing that risk and making

6:08 ↗ sure that we were in compliance with

6:09 ↗ state law. We also wanted to be in

6:12 ↗ alignment as closely as we could to our

6:14 ↗ neighboring jurisdictions. And what we

6:16 ↗ found um on the jurisdictions that we

6:19 ↗ did look at that um most of them did

6:22 ↗ limit the adjustments to service line

6:24 ↗ leaks

6:26 ↗ um most of them didn't have a maximum

6:29 ↗ dollar amount that limited the

6:31 ↗ adjustment.

6:32 ↗ uh we found that some had one-time

6:35 ↗ adjustments and then in terms of the

6:37 ↗ methodology that varied between

6:39 ↗ jurisdictions, but what we found was our

6:42 ↗ policy was at least within the

6:44 ↗ parameters of what the other

6:45 ↗ jurisdictions were doing. We also

6:47 ↗ >> I'm sorry I I have a question.

6:49 ↗ >> Yes.

6:49 ↗ >> Um when you say we can't be a lender

6:53 ↗ >> Yes.

6:53 ↗ >> Does that mean we can't offer someone

6:55 ↗ payment a payment plan? we can as long

6:59 ↗ as it's like a structured um formal

7:02 ↗ agreement um that's signed by both

7:04 ↗ parties, but generally speaking, we're

7:07 ↗ not a lending in institution. But yes,

7:10 ↗ if we have a policy that allows it

7:12 ↗ within within some reasonable

7:13 ↗ parameters, we have a structured

7:15 ↗ agreement um or settlement agreement

7:17 ↗ like that went through legal, then yes,

7:20 ↗ in particular situations we can. Oh,

7:22 ↗ >> okay. All right.

7:23 ↗ >> Yes. Thank you.

7:24 ↗ >> Yes,

7:24 ↗ >> please.

7:25 ↗ >> Yes. Um, we also consider transparency

7:28 ↗ and consistency. We wanted a framework

7:31 ↗ that was easy for customers to

7:33 ↗ understand, a framework that was easy

7:35 ↗ for our staff to understand, and we

7:37 ↗ wanted a methodology that could be

7:40 ↗ applied in the same way um to all

7:44 ↗ qualifying um counts. We also wanted to

7:47 ↗ continue to encourage our conservation.

7:50 ↗ We have a rate structure that

7:52 ↗ incentivizes lower water consumption. So

7:55 ↗ we wanted to make sure that the policy

7:56 ↗ that we were bringing forward wasn't to

7:58 ↗ going to be in conflict with that. And

8:00 ↗ then past practice, we wanted to

8:02 ↗ consider how have we been how handling

8:05 ↗ our policy especially in relation to the

8:08 ↗ large anomalies this past year. Um again

8:10 ↗ to try to bring some consistency with

8:12 ↗ with how we've been handling those

8:14 ↗ accounts.

8:16 ↗ So in terms of the proposed policy, uh

8:20 ↗ we want to keep our current exclusions

8:23 ↗ which we are excluding the adjustment

8:26 ↗ policy um not to include irrigation,

8:28 ↗ pools, water features, boat docks, and

8:31 ↗ leaks due to negligence or neglect. Um

8:34 ↗ that has been our past practice and that

8:36 ↗ is currently our policy. We do uh want

8:39 ↗ to remove the $1,000 limit for all

8:42 ↗ qualifying customers. So, what that

8:43 ↗ would mean is the adjustments wouldn't

8:45 ↗ be limited in terms of the dollar amount

8:48 ↗ that could um be given for an

8:50 ↗ adjustment. In terms of eligibility,

8:53 ↗ this would apply to service lines only,

8:56 ↗ meaning it wouldn't apply to a leaky

8:57 ↗ toilet or a leaky faucet. Um, the repair

9:01 ↗ must be repaired by the owner within 30

9:03 ↗ days of discovery, and proof of the

9:06 ↗ repair would need to be provided. The

9:08 ↗ accounts must be in good standing,

9:10 ↗ meaning it can't be a past due account

9:11 ↗ or subject to shut off. And this would

9:14 ↗ only be made for leaks for above the

9:17 ↗ 1500 cubic feet level. That's about

9:19 ↗ where the tier structure is, where it

9:21 ↗ starts to become a little bit more

9:23 ↗ costly for the customer. Uh we would

9:26 ↗ also limit it to one adjustment per

9:29 ↗ owner per property. That has also been

9:31 ↗ part of our PA past practice and part of

9:34 ↗ our current policy. In terms of how

9:36 ↗ we're going to calculate the adjustment,

9:39 ↗ we're going to calculate the average

9:40 ↗ water usage for the past 3 years or

9:43 ↗ whatever the most recent if the customer

9:44 ↗ doesn't have a three-year history,

9:46 ↗ whatever the most current history is.

9:48 ↗ We're going to take the difference of

9:50 ↗ the average water usage and reduce that

9:52 ↗ to tier three of the block rate

9:54 ↗ structure for a single family resident

9:57 ↗ and for a duplex customer or to tier one

9:59 ↗ for a commercial customer.

10:06 ↗ So I wanted to provide this is a a

10:08 ↗ mathematical representation of what

10:11 ↗ policy imple implementation might look

10:13 ↗ like for a single family resident. And I

10:15 ↗ I do want to clarify that these amounts

10:18 ↗ are estimates. Um I was trying to

10:22 ↗ illustrate again what the proposed

10:24 ↗ policy would look like in comparison to

10:26 ↗ what the current policy would look like.

10:28 ↗ Um the first item would be

10:30 ↗ representation of one of the rare

10:33 ↗ occurrences that we've seen in the last

10:34 ↗ couple of months. And then the second

10:36 ↗ item would what I consider a more common

10:39 ↗ occurrence that we could see more

10:40 ↗ regularly. Um and what we're trying to

10:45 ↗ demonstrate here is again balancing and

10:48 ↗ managing that audit risk and the

10:50 ↗ financial hardship. So under the

10:52 ↗ proposed policy um although it's in a

10:55 ↗ large it's a large adjustment um for the

10:58 ↗ customer um but they're still paying a

11:01 ↗ significant amount even with a large

11:03 ↗ adjustment but they would also be paying

11:06 ↗ less than the current limitation of the

11:08 ↗ $1,000. So that's where we're kind of

11:10 ↗ trying to balance both the audit risk

11:12 ↗ and the um financial hardship.

11:18 ↗ So, a couple of options. We can um

11:20 ↗ continue using our existing policy which

11:23 ↗ is limited to the $1,000 for all

11:25 ↗ customers and uh maintain our current

11:28 ↗ exclusions

11:29 ↗ or we consider updating the policy um to

11:33 ↗ clarify the service line leaks um look

11:37 ↗ at how we can manage our risk, manage

11:39 ↗ the financial hardship and most

11:41 ↗ importantly I think it's we need to

11:44 ↗ establish methodology that's clear to

11:47 ↗ the customer, clear to staff. So, we're

11:49 ↗ consistently applying adjustments um to

11:52 ↗ all customers that qualify.

11:56 ↗ In terms of timing and next steps, uh

11:58 ↗ pending the committee's recommendation,

12:00 ↗ the proposed ordinance will be prepared

12:02 ↗ for city council consideration either on

12:04 ↗ October 20th or December 1st.

12:10 ↗ So, at this time, I'm happy to answer

12:12 ↗ any questions and seek input on any

12:15 ↗ desired modifications to the policy

12:18 ↗ prior to it being forwarded to um city

12:21 ↗ council um for their consideration.

12:25 ↗ >> Council member Ray,

12:27 ↗ >> um great. Thank you. I really appreciate

12:30 ↗ you doing this for oh so many reasons,

12:32 ↗ but um I just have one really basic

12:36 ↗ question for a single family residents

12:39 ↗ at where does tier three kick in in

12:42 ↗ terms of consumption?

12:44 ↗ >> So that would be about the 50

12:45 ↗ >> that okay so I was wondering if those

12:47 ↗ were were correlated. Okay, great.

12:50 ↗ >> I have I have thoughts but that's my

12:51 ↗ only question.

12:55 ↗ You mentioned that

12:57 ↗ we had asked about comparable cities. Do

13:00 ↗ you have data on the policies of

13:02 ↗ comparable cities?

13:03 ↗ >> We were Yes, we were trying to find

13:07 ↗ cities that had um water services that

13:11 ↗ were neighboring jurisdictions and those

13:14 ↗ that responded.

13:16 ↗ >> So, what what was the response?

13:19 ↗ >> Um those were the ones that were

13:21 ↗ included in the packet. So, let me pull

13:25 ↗ We looked at water district 9. You want

13:28 ↗ the names of the jurisdictions?

13:29 ↗ >> I'm just wondering what the policies

13:30 ↗ were, how it compares to what

13:33 ↗ >> Oh, that's where we looked at. They were

13:36 ↗ kind of varying, but most of them um

13:38 ↗ looked at service line leaks only. Um

13:41 ↗ most of them did not have a maximum

13:44 ↗ limitation in terms of dollar amount. Um

13:46 ↗ the methodology did vary between

13:49 ↗ jurisdiction, but when comparing what

13:52 ↗ we're proposing, um our policy was

13:54 ↗ within the parameters of the other

13:56 ↗ jurisdictions. And then um

14:00 ↗ let's see. And

14:04 ↗ yeah, that was

14:06 ↗ most of what we looked at.

14:13 ↗ >> Oh, and the frequency. Most of them did

14:15 ↗ onetime adjustments. Some of them

14:17 ↗ varied, but most of them did onetime

14:18 ↗ adjustments. That was the other thing

14:19 ↗ that we looked at.

14:20 ↗ >> So, most of it was uh one time they

14:23 ↗ would let it be a lot more than $1,000.

14:24 ↗ Is that what you're saying?

14:26 ↗ >> Repeat that.

14:27 ↗ >> One time they would uh adjust a lot more

14:30 ↗ than $1,000. So, they would do it they

14:32 ↗ would do a big adjustment once.

14:34 ↗ >> Correct.

14:35 ↗ >> Was the policy that most

14:37 ↗ >> Correct. And and that would be what we

14:39 ↗ would be proposing as well.

14:40 ↗ >> I get I get that. No, I that I

14:41 ↗ understand. But yes, most of them were

14:43 ↗ similar.

14:47 ↗ >> We don't have any other questions right

14:49 ↗ now.

14:51 ↗ All right. So, I uh will ask the clerk

14:54 ↗ whether there's any indication that

14:55 ↗ anyone online is interested in making

14:57 ↗ public comment at this time before we

14:59 ↗ move to the deliberation on this item.

15:01 ↗ >> Not at this time. Chair,

15:03 ↗ >> thank you very much. So, we'll move to

15:04 ↗ deliberation. Who wants to start?

15:07 ↗ Council member Ray, you want to start?

15:09 ↗ >> I always want to start. Um I really

15:12 ↗ appreciate this. Um I really think it is

15:14 ↗ u smart to take um this and codify it

15:19 ↗ and make it a formal policy. I think it

15:20 ↗ gives um a lot of transparent

15:23 ↗ transparency and consistency and also I

15:26 ↗ think protects the city. So uh kudos for

15:29 ↗ taking that on. Um I also think this is

15:32 ↗ really um reasonable and my rationale

15:36 ↗ kind of goes like this and um we just

15:39 ↗ are in the process of wrapping up our

15:41 ↗ current rate study. in the rate study.

15:43 ↗ If you sit through all of the U mobility

15:46 ↗ and infrastructure committee meetings

15:47 ↗ and you see the process for building up

15:49 ↗ the water rates, you recognize that um

15:52 ↗ there are assumptions made in the water

15:54 ↗ rates about that are tied to maintaining

15:57 ↗ the water system and um also in our

16:01 ↗ water rates is are as uh Kristen really

16:04 ↗ pointed out our big drive to use

16:06 ↗ financial incentives to help people

16:08 ↗ conserve water. Um I don't know of

16:10 ↗ anybody who has a leak who's

16:11 ↗ intentionally leaking water. So um it's

16:15 ↗ not that they are being uh bad stewards

16:17 ↗ of water. They are having bad luck with

16:21 ↗ water. And so the financial uh incentive

16:24 ↗ is is not reasonable. And so I I think

16:27 ↗ this notion of of capping it at, you

16:29 ↗ know, we're still paying you're still

16:31 ↗ paying for the water, you're just not

16:33 ↗ paying it at the conservationdriven

16:35 ↗ rates. That's kind of my understanding.

16:37 ↗ Right.

16:37 ↗ >> Correct.

16:38 ↗ >> Okay. So I think that that seems really

16:39 ↗ reasonable and also it also

16:42 ↗ provides sufficient um additional

16:45 ↗ revenue to support the water system that

16:49 ↗ would if we were um collecting at the

16:52 ↗ higher rate for this particular leak

16:54 ↗ would be in excess of what is required

16:56 ↗ to maintain the water system. So I think

16:59 ↗ this is really reasonable. I think it is

17:03 ↗ um

17:05 ↗ more aligned with um the the ethos of

17:10 ↗ the city of being fair and um I don't

17:13 ↗ think in any way, shape or form does

17:14 ↗ this could I interpret this to be a gift

17:16 ↗ of public funds or um any way

17:22 ↗ giving a a uh advantage to somebody who

17:25 ↗ is has the misfortune of a a leak,

17:27 ↗ particularly an extensive one, and

17:29 ↗ they're still going to end up with an

17:30 ↗ extensive water Mhm. Thank you,

17:34 ↗ >> Deputy Council President D. Michelle.

17:38 ↗ >> Um I I think that uh Council Member Ray

17:40 ↗ has said it uh very well and so I I

17:43 ↗ don't want to repeat what he's had to

17:45 ↗ say. I just thanks to Council Member Ray

17:47 ↗ for pushing this. Um I think it's great

17:49 ↗ that we will now have a consistent

17:52 ↗ policy that's clear to everybody and uh

17:55 ↗ that's important that we're being fair

17:57 ↗ to everybody. and I think uh the work

18:00 ↗ has been done very well. So, um I'll be

18:04 ↗ supporting it. Thank you.

18:06 ↗ >> Well, I was all ready to say no and be a

18:08 ↗ kromagin, but uh council council member

18:11 ↗ Ray's honey tonged oratory uh convinced

18:14 ↗ me of the benefits of this uh set of

18:17 ↗ policies. So, I'm going to support it as

18:19 ↗ well. So, there you have it. City

18:21 ↗ administrator, you have what you need

18:23 ↗ from us on this item. The only other

18:25 ↗ question would be is this something

18:26 ↗ you'd like on the regular business or on

18:28 ↗ consent?

18:31 ↗ >> Yeah, I think we're fine with consent.

18:33 ↗ >> Great. And perhaps Chair March, you can

18:35 ↗ make some comments before the consent

18:37 ↗ calendar.

18:38 ↗ >> I would be happy to to

18:39 ↗ >> So, we'll make sure you have the

18:40 ↗ comments. So, thank you very much.

18:43 ↗ >> I certainly will. Thank you very much.

18:45 ↗ All right. We only have one item left uh

18:48 ↗ on the agenda uh which is COOM0180

18:52 ↗ ebike briefing from our chief polish.

19:07 ↗ Good evening, chief

19:40 ↗ Have we reached the part of the evening

19:41 ↗ before I started to show tunes.

19:44 ↗ >> Yes.

19:44 ↗ >> Okay. You don't you don't you don't you

19:46 ↗ don't want me to do that.

19:51 ↗ >> There we go.

20:20 ↗ Thank you.

20:22 ↗ Thank you, council members. And um

20:25 ↗ tonight we're here to talk about the

20:27 ↗ ebikes. It's been an ongoing um and

20:31 ↗ building situation and circumstance, not

20:33 ↗ just for our city, but for the region um

20:35 ↗ as well. Next slide, please.

20:45 ↗ Thank you. Um purpose tonight is provide

20:48 ↗ detail on the use of ebikes and e-

20:50 ↗ motorcycles in Isiqua steps to address

20:52 ↗ illegal and dangerous riders and request

20:54 ↗ policy direction on next steps.

20:59 ↗ The direction needed from the council is

21:01 ↗ or from the commission is to provide

21:04 ↗ policy and direction and recommend a

21:06 ↗ courses of action to number one develop

21:07 ↗ city code to define and regulate e-

21:09 ↗ motorcycles use by minors and on public

21:12 ↗ streets. And the second is to add

21:14 ↗ support for efforts to better define and

21:16 ↗ regulate e- motorcycles use in the state

21:18 ↗ law to um the legislative policy manual.

21:24 ↗ So, a couple of definitions. Um, you

21:26 ↗ were provided this. It just, uh, there's

21:28 ↗ several of them on, uh, the different

21:30 ↗ sizes and classes of the different

21:32 ↗ bikes. Um, I don't know if you want me

21:34 ↗ to, I'll let you read that versus me

21:35 ↗ reading it for you. U,, there's all

21:37 ↗ different sizes and what is, um,

21:39 ↗ constitutes needing um, different

21:42 ↗ lensures, different registrations, and

21:44 ↗ such.

21:44 ↗ >> Chief, I'm sorry. I believe I have a

21:46 ↗ question from the deputy council

21:47 ↗ president.

21:47 ↗ >> Sure. Uh, thanks, uh, Chief Schwan. So,

21:51 ↗ I was reading this um and in every case

21:55 ↗ they are not supposed to be on

21:57 ↗ non-motorized trails and yet uh we've

22:00 ↗ heard testimony from people even who

22:03 ↗ came here about a year ago and and about

22:07 ↗ an incident where someone actually lost

22:09 ↗ their life because somebody on a trail

22:11 ↗ was riding an ebike. Um, and um, I'm

22:16 ↗ just wondering is there and I know that

22:20 ↗ you said you later in the presentation

22:21 ↗ that some officers can't because they're

22:24 ↗ in a car, they can't get on the

22:25 ↗ non-motorized trail. What do we do about

22:28 ↗ keeping people off of trails when

22:31 ↗ they're not even supposed to be on them

22:33 ↗ and it's a classy bike and it says

22:35 ↗ you're not supposed to be on a

22:36 ↗ non-motorized trail? Is there anything

22:39 ↗ that we can do there?

22:41 ↗ The biggest deterrent I guess is, you

22:44 ↗ know, we post signs. We tell people it's

22:47 ↗ not authorized. Uh we educate and let

22:49 ↗ them know what defines the different

22:51 ↗ bikes like as we're talking about here

22:53 ↗ and what makes it motorized. Some people

22:55 ↗ think, oh, this one, this bike doesn't

22:57 ↗ qualify. Sometimes they might think

22:59 ↗ that, oh, this bike doesn't go fast

23:01 ↗ enough to qualify. So, I think having

23:03 ↗ some education and purpose on that is a

23:05 ↗ big piece. uh and being very broad in

23:08 ↗ that communication to people because as

23:10 ↗ is mentioned in the in the documentation

23:13 ↗ that you were provided it's um since co

23:16 ↗ it's people have got them and they more

23:18 ↗ they come into a price range where more

23:20 ↗ people can purchase them u becomes more

23:22 ↗ problematic. Um the other part it's

23:24 ↗ difficult in our trails as well as when

23:26 ↗ they um go on the trails we don't have

23:29 ↗ the jurisdiction because sometimes the

23:31 ↗ minute they go onto a certain trail

23:32 ↗ they're no longer in our jurisdiction.

23:34 ↗ So then also that becomes a concern and

23:36 ↗ an issue. Now it doesn't mean we can't

23:38 ↗ let our parks people know. Um but even

23:41 ↗ when they're not on the trails and

23:42 ↗ they're even in our city streets, we're

23:44 ↗ having difficulty because they're not

23:45 ↗ stopping. Um and so some of these bikes

23:48 ↗ though also are supposed to have certain

23:50 ↗ registrations and you're supposed to

23:52 ↗ have certain lenses or endorsements to

23:54 ↗ be even riding them, which again is

23:56 ↗ another education piece. But some of

23:58 ↗ those identifiers will help more no

24:00 ↗ different than a license plate on a car.

24:03 ↗ then at least we could track down and

24:04 ↗ educate and get in contact with those

24:06 ↗ individuals if they had such

24:08 ↗ registrations.

24:11 ↗ >> Thank you so much, Council Member Ray.

24:13 ↗ >> Yeah, sorry. I don't want to beat this

24:15 ↗ one, but can you define what a

24:16 ↗ non-motorized trail is? Cuz I mean, I

24:19 ↗ know what a sidewalk is. I think I kind

24:21 ↗ of know what a shared path is, but are

24:23 ↗ we talking like little dirt trails or

24:24 ↗ are we talking, you know, like Lake

24:27 ↗ Seamish or the Reineer Trail, or what

24:30 ↗ are we talking about? When you talk

24:31 ↗ about non-motorized trails, there are

24:33 ↗ certain trails within the within the

24:34 ↗ city or within the different areas for

24:37 ↗ for example for mountain biking. So when

24:39 ↗ you go off trail, um there's certain

24:41 ↗ ones that are very specifically and

24:44 ↗ that's a lot of times for the

24:45 ↗ maintenance of those trails and you

24:47 ↗ don't want something that has a super

24:48 ↗ bunch of power as well because they can

24:50 ↗ damage those trails. and the city and

24:52 ↗ the county pay a lot of money to

24:55 ↗ maintain those trails. So, they're very

24:57 ↗ nice and accessible for the people that

24:59 ↗ are pedestrians, joggers, walkers,

25:01 ↗ climbers, and mountain bikers even for

25:03 ↗ that matter. And but they're

25:05 ↗ self-propelled. They're not the ones

25:06 ↗ that are intended for the ones that are

25:09 ↗ motorized, for example. Um motorized and

25:11 ↗ the intent typically is not for

25:13 ↗ recreational or exercise. It's more to

25:15 ↗ get you from one place to another. Um,

25:18 ↗ now people are using them for multi-

25:19 ↗ reasons, but that would be more of what

25:21 ↗ those trails are. Yes, sidewalks aren't

25:24 ↗ intended for necessarily motorized

25:26 ↗ because, as is mentioned also in in the

25:28 ↗ documents is that it's it's very

25:31 ↗ dangerous if someone's coming at you, if

25:33 ↗ they're not a very seasoned rider and

25:35 ↗ you see them coming. It's hard enough

25:36 ↗ when you have a little one, right,

25:37 ↗ that's got training wheels and can't

25:38 ↗ ride real great. But now when you add a

25:40 ↗ bunch of speed to that, um, it can be

25:42 ↗ very dangerous for the pedestrians. And

25:44 ↗ we have a lot of walking community in

25:46 ↗ this area. And we've kind of um really

25:48 ↗ established that in our community in the

25:50 ↗ Highlands and in different areas down in

25:51 ↗ even um in Oldtown that we've made it

25:55 ↗ accessible for people to be able to walk

25:57 ↗ and do many different things. And now

25:59 ↗ when you add this to the mix, it becomes

26:01 ↗ very dangerous for those those people

26:02 ↗ that we've created that environment for.

26:06 ↗ >> Awesome. Thank you. Yes.

26:10 ↗ Next slide, please.

26:14 ↗ So an ebike and an e motorcycle trends

26:17 ↗ um national increase in usage of the

26:20 ↗ pedal pedal assisted and throttle style

26:23 ↗ bikes um has increased. First wave was

26:25 ↗ injuries occurred most to the older

26:27 ↗ riders because it was seen as oh these

26:29 ↗ are a good option um to be able to get

26:32 ↗ from point A to point B like we had

26:34 ↗ discussed. Um, but if you're not as

26:36 ↗ savvy, if your relexes aren't as quick

26:38 ↗ and you don't realize how fast it can

26:40 ↗ go, it's no different than getting a

26:41 ↗ moped for example. And so that

26:44 ↗ increased. And then the second wave and

26:46 ↗ current wave, there are injuries

26:48 ↗ occurring more frequently with younger

26:49 ↗ riders and and with minors because they

26:52 ↗ are as inexperienced. And some of them

26:54 ↗ aren't even uh haven't even ridden

26:56 ↗ regular bikes that are non-motorized

26:57 ↗ very much. and they're jumping on these

26:59 ↗ bikes thinking that it's going to be,

27:01 ↗ oh, it's great and fun, but it goes

27:02 ↗ super fast, really, really fast. Um, and

27:05 ↗ that's a huge learning curve for these

27:07 ↗ um individuals that I think parents

27:09 ↗ don't realize. You know, you say 20 25

27:12 ↗ miles an hour in a car that doesn't seem

27:14 ↗ very much, but you put it on a bike that

27:15 ↗ becomes problematic and it is actually

27:17 ↗ really fast, especially if they're

27:18 ↗ either not wearing helmets, they're not

27:20 ↗ wearing other protective gear. I mean

27:22 ↗ state laws even that you wear a helmet

27:24 ↗ for a reason no matter the speed of the

27:26 ↗ motorcycle obviously is typically over

27:28 ↗ you know 50 cc's but the point is

27:30 ↗ because there was so many collisions and

27:32 ↗ injuries no different than wearing you

27:35 ↗ know um steeltoed boots or boots and as

27:37 ↗ a matter of fact for most motorcycle

27:39 ↗ gear you see them in leather that's for

27:41 ↗ when they happen to crash it protects

27:42 ↗ them from that and that's not something

27:44 ↗ that's happening and clear public safety

27:46 ↗ issue is due to speed illegal use and

27:49 ↗ injuries and fatalities with of riders

27:51 ↗ um auto passengers and pedestrians

27:53 ↗ because when they cut in and out of

27:55 ↗ traffic, they don't see them coming.

27:56 ↗ They're not as used to even doors

27:58 ↗ opening when you're going down a trail

28:00 ↗ or been riding on those um pathways,

28:02 ↗ whether it be a bike pathway or in the

28:04 ↗ roadway. Uh without learning those rules

28:06 ↗ of the road because you don't have a

28:08 ↗ license for those things to go that fast

28:10 ↗ or to go around them, that becomes and

28:12 ↗ you're going a fast speed. Even if you

28:14 ↗ look in your rearview mirror, you might

28:15 ↗ not see them um opening and then you

28:17 ↗ open your door and there they are. So,

28:18 ↗ it just is can be problematic. So we

28:21 ↗ have to be careful even opening our

28:22 ↗ doors and really look and pay attention

28:24 ↗ to and issues have also seen in Seattle,

28:26 ↗ both Kirkland, Mercer Island, Snowquali,

28:28 ↗ Northbend and Vancouver very notable in

28:31 ↗ those jurisdictions.

28:35 ↗ Thank you. Um the issues in Isiqua

28:37 ↗ specifically um lack of parental um

28:40 ↗ understanding and that's why we're

28:42 ↗ talking about the education piece so

28:43 ↗ much uh about the minor children can

28:45 ↗ what they can ride. Um goes along with

28:48 ↗ that is few riders stop for IPD is

28:51 ↗ another huge problematic thing that

28:52 ↗ we're having and coming across. We've

28:54 ↗ had multiple calls for service and

28:57 ↗ having contact actually with those

28:58 ↗ individuals has been very problematic.

29:00 ↗ Uh we also have numerous youth riders

29:02 ↗ that um without understanding in regard

29:05 ↗ to safe and legal riding because they're

29:08 ↗ not required. Right now in the statute,

29:10 ↗ there's nothing saying that if you get a

29:11 ↗ a a bike that has certain goes a certain

29:14 ↗ speed that you have to have any class

29:15 ↗ that's being taken. I It used to be even

29:18 ↗ when we did the bike helmets or bike

29:19 ↗ rodeos for even just pedal bikes

29:21 ↗ self-propelled, they would take a, you

29:23 ↗ know, a course on how to navigate and be

29:26 ↗ able to stay and suspend without, you

29:28 ↗ know, pedaling, but you know, then pedal

29:30 ↗ a little bit and you would go through

29:31 ↗ rodeos and go through those rules of the

29:33 ↗ road as well. They're not even being

29:34 ↗ required to do that. And now we're

29:36 ↗ adding speed into the factor and so that

29:38 ↗ becomes an issue. And so we also have

29:40 ↗ dangerous and illegal behavior from

29:42 ↗ minors. Um that was our discuss. And

29:44 ↗ then limit um the ability for the minor

29:47 ↗ writers to due to you know certain court

29:50 ↗ policies and procedures that right now

29:52 ↗ they're not enforcing anything that's um

29:55 ↗ for people that are under 16. They're

29:56 ↗ not really the courts don't have the

29:58 ↗ capacity. And so that's become another

30:00 ↗ piece and problem. And then we do have

30:02 ↗ the the limits as well. the danger of

30:05 ↗ the pursuit. If we do try and chase

30:07 ↗ somebody, we try and outweigh is the is

30:10 ↗ the safety factor, you know, different

30:12 ↗ than or more to chase them, especially

30:14 ↗ during time of day. And this happens

30:16 ↗ then at night and during the daytime,

30:18 ↗ but more during the daytime because more

30:19 ↗ people are riding them as you can

30:21 ↗ imagine. So, we have to weigh all those

30:22 ↗ factors and the community and how that

30:25 ↗ impacts them. And the you know IPD also

30:29 ↗ has the limited ability to um you know

30:34 ↗ take the enforcement action um which

30:35 ↗ leads to we talk about when we even talk

30:38 ↗ about empoundment that's coming up of

30:39 ↗ the vehicles. We tried to come up with

30:41 ↗ an option that isn't like we call a tow

30:44 ↗ truck right because not only is that the

30:46 ↗ impound fee like a car which can be

30:49 ↗ hundreds of dollars but it also is a

30:51 ↗ daily storage fee. So the idea was for

30:54 ↗ us to come up with a different solution

30:55 ↗ that was okay impound it to the PD which

30:58 ↗ there's a lot of them and we have done

30:59 ↗ it in one circumstance and then the

31:01 ↗ parent has to come down and they get it

31:03 ↗ from us which there's an empoundment fee

31:05 ↗ but it's minimal compared to what it' be

31:07 ↗ for like a tow truck or whatnot. So we

31:10 ↗ tried to do this to where it's an

31:11 ↗ education piece as well in that process

31:13 ↗ instead of it being so punitive. It was

31:16 ↗ just more of an education to say listen

31:18 ↗ this is what was happening. This is what

31:19 ↗ the recourse was and you want to make

31:21 ↗ sure that your children are aware and

31:23 ↗ what's happening with that. And then

31:25 ↗ lastly were limited um opportunities for

31:28 ↗ that educa education and the penalty. So

31:31 ↗ next slide.

31:33 ↗ Thank you. The current penalties um

31:35 ↗ legal authority to impound for motor

31:37 ↗ vehicles. Like I said, um we want the

31:39 ↗ parent or guardian or owner of the

31:41 ↗ vehicle pay the fees um or ret and or

31:44 ↗ retrieve the vehicle or both. So it's

31:46 ↗ minimal, but we want there to be some

31:48 ↗ sort of penalty for them to So there's

31:50 ↗ and it's a pain because you got to come

31:52 ↗ down to the PD, right? You still got to

31:54 ↗ and it's got to be during certain hours.

31:55 ↗ It's we're not open 24/7 to release

31:57 ↗ property. So those are some

31:59 ↗ inconveniences which we don't want it to

32:01 ↗ be a hardship, but we want it to be

32:02 ↗ understood that this is a safety factor

32:04 ↗ and there are certain circumstances that

32:05 ↗ don't make it easy. Um, but we want it

32:08 ↗ to be an education piece and limited

32:09 ↗ ability to personalize or to penalize

32:12 ↗ through the court because um, the

32:13 ↗ writers are a lot often more often than

32:16 ↗ not now minors than more than they are

32:18 ↗ the adults.

32:21 ↗ >> Council member Rake.

32:22 ↗ >> Um, great. Thanks. Um, so there are lots

32:26 ↗ of uh traffic citations given to minors,

32:29 ↗ you know, and is is citing is is a

32:33 ↗ citation an option or because, you know,

32:35 ↗ I'm 16 and I'm going 50 down uh Newport

32:39 ↗ and I I have a nice interaction with

32:42 ↗ police department and I get a citation,

32:43 ↗ so I got a I got a ticket to pay, don't

32:45 ↗ I?

32:46 ↗ >> Right. Well, there's there's certain

32:48 ↗ differences and so that's what we're

32:49 ↗ speaking about. Um there's a difference

32:51 ↗ in infraction which is a civil penalty

32:53 ↗ versus it being a citation. Citation is

32:56 ↗ actually punitive and that means it's

32:58 ↗ more um it goes to the municipal court.

33:02 ↗ So it's a crime whereas a civil

33:04 ↗ infraction is like a speeding incident.

33:06 ↗ >> Okay. So could we do something like is

33:08 ↗ that an option

33:09 ↗ >> if we could catch them?

33:10 ↗ >> Okay.

33:10 ↗ >> Um number one but

33:13 ↗ number two the other part is they don't

33:14 ↗ come always to since they're a juvenile

33:17 ↗ they go to juvenile court. And this is

33:18 ↗ where there in lies the problem because

33:20 ↗ it doesn't come to our municipal court

33:22 ↗ for our judge. It actually even though

33:23 ↗ their civil penalties often go to the

33:25 ↗ juvenile court. And so that becomes an

33:28 ↗ issue to where they're not upholding

33:30 ↗ those penalties right now because their

33:32 ↗ capacity is overwhelming for them. And

33:34 ↗ they are so overwhelmed even just in the

33:36 ↗ criminal capacity that um the civil

33:38 ↗ penalties aren't ones that they often

33:40 ↗ work with. So that's why we're looking

33:42 ↗ at the possibility of a municipal code

33:44 ↗ because then that would be coming to our

33:46 ↗ court. Ah,

33:46 ↗ >> got it. Thanks.

33:52 ↗ regional approach. Several um people got

33:54 ↗ together um different groups from all

33:56 ↗ these cities um and Jillian went and met

33:59 ↗ with a bunch of those groups as well to

34:01 ↗ collaborate and see if we're having all

34:03 ↗ the same types of concerns. And Mercer

34:06 ↗ Island, they established an ordinance

34:07 ↗ clearly defining e- motorcycles as

34:09 ↗ illegal for miners to use and limiting

34:11 ↗ where they can ride or use them. So

34:14 ↗ commonly utilizing empoundment to

34:16 ↗ educate and dissuade uh repeat or

34:18 ↗ illegal usage. Both created educational

34:21 ↗ materials for parents specifically

34:26 ↗ um the state and local proposal. So the

34:28 ↗ local proposal is to establish the city

34:30 ↗ code which defines um what is qualified

34:32 ↗ as an e- motorcycle restrictions with

34:34 ↗ the requirements and penalties basically

34:36 ↗ lensure for what that means for what

34:39 ↗ type of bikes. So they had that

34:40 ↗ education. Um motorcycle endorsements

34:42 ↗ are required up to certain um guidelines

34:45 ↗ and certain size of bikes and ebikes

34:47 ↗ where you can where they can be used.

34:49 ↗ Guardian responsibility and fines for

34:51 ↗ those that are responsible um which is

34:53 ↗ not any different actually. Those

34:55 ↗ actually penalties go along with someone

34:57 ↗ that drives a suspended on a suspended

34:59 ↗ license. If you have your child, whether

35:02 ↗ they're an adult child or a minor child

35:04 ↗ and they you know they're driving your

35:05 ↗ car suspended, you can actually be

35:07 ↗ fined. um and if it's your car and

35:09 ↗ that's those are already laws that are

35:11 ↗ in effect for even for a regular

35:12 ↗ license. So these aren't something

35:13 ↗ that's out of the norm or that we're

35:14 ↗ jumping out at. These are things that

35:16 ↗ are already in place even for regular

35:18 ↗ cars. Uh and then continue education

35:20 ↗ efforts which really kind of push out in

35:22 ↗ social media uh push out in other means

35:26 ↗ for us to be able to educate the public

35:28 ↗ on what that looks like and those

35:30 ↗ differences. And then would you like to

35:32 ↗ have me answer before or go to the

35:33 ↗ state?

35:34 ↗ >> Well I think deputy council question.

35:37 ↗ Yeah, just a a quick question. So, when

35:39 ↗ we're talking about minors, um are we

35:42 ↗ talking 10 year olds or eight-y olds or

35:45 ↗ is there when we're looking at these

35:46 ↗ penalties, uh which I think are great

35:50 ↗ ideas, but um

35:53 ↗ what do we when we say we're dealing

35:54 ↗ with minors? I know that's under 16, but

35:57 ↗ how low does the age group? What's the

36:00 ↗ youngest person you found riding a an

36:02 ↗ ebike?

36:03 ↗ >> I don't have that specific number. I'd

36:05 ↗ have to do some research,

36:06 ↗ >> but I can and I can see if Jillian if

36:08 ↗ you have

36:14 ↗ >> um and speaking with some IPD officers

36:16 ↗ like the youngest case that we had

36:17 ↗ talked about anecdotally involved a

36:18 ↗ 12-year-old.

36:19 ↗ >> Oh, okay. Thanks.

36:21 ↗ >> And just to be clear, minors are anybody

36:23 ↗ under the age of 18 because then 17 and

36:27 ↗ below, their parents are responsible for

36:28 ↗ them. 18 and above, they're considered

36:30 ↗ an adult so they can make their own

36:32 ↗ decisions and vote so forth.

36:35 ↗ Thank you for the question. Um and the

36:37 ↗ state proposal would be support efforts

36:40 ↗ to revise the RCW and what we would ask

36:42 ↗ in that revision would be to standardize

36:44 ↗ the definition of an e- motorcycle and

36:47 ↗ to better regulate purchase and

36:48 ↗ registration of e- motorcycles which can

36:51 ↗ be also very difficult I will say um

36:55 ↗ because for example

36:57 ↗ let's use window tinting and you let's

36:59 ↗ say you go buy a car and it's already or

37:01 ↗ pre certified pre-owned even um but the

37:03 ↗ reality is they did an aftermarket or

37:05 ↗ even that came with tinted windows. We

37:08 ↗ have tent readers and it's illegal to

37:10 ↗ have them below a certain tent. It's not

37:12 ↗ illegal for them to sell the car with

37:14 ↗ that tint, nor is it illegal for them to

37:17 ↗ an aftermarket place to put that tint on

37:19 ↗ a car and it be purchased. But it is

37:21 ↗ illegal for you to own and possess and

37:23 ↗ drive a car on the road with that. And

37:25 ↗ same thing with aftermarket or a really

37:27 ↗ nice car. No one wants to put the front

37:28 ↗ plate on because it didn't have one.

37:30 ↗ Well, there are large magnets and

37:32 ↗ different things that are that it still

37:33 ↗ makes it against the law. So there in

37:36 ↗ lies a couple other different challenges

37:38 ↗ I would say at the state level um as

37:40 ↗ well. Um but that is part of that

37:42 ↗ process that we were hoping that um

37:44 ↗ might be something that we could instill

37:46 ↗ to help prevent and educate this

37:48 ↗ process. Next slide.

37:52 ↗ So options other regional solutions that

37:54 ↗ were considered um education only we

37:57 ↗ focus on the ability to make shops

37:59 ↗ impound ebikes um or make stops impound

38:04 ↗ ebikes and e- motorcycles and contact

38:06 ↗ parents will be the most effective form

38:08 ↗ and education to reduce minors usage uh

38:12 ↗ impoundment while IPD can impound and

38:15 ↗ some circumstances now there is a

38:17 ↗ preference for impounding on city

38:19 ↗ property to reduce fees at a more

38:21 ↗ reasonable as we've discussed already

38:23 ↗ how what the differences those can be.

38:24 ↗ It can be very expensive. It builds

38:27 ↗ daily if it's to an impound lot. Um we

38:29 ↗ don't want to we're not trying to take

38:30 ↗ any business away from them. We're just

38:32 ↗ trying to make it not so egregious for

38:35 ↗ parents more of the education piece. Um

38:37 ↗ and then we would be addressed as a city

38:40 ↗ code update. Next slide.

38:43 ↗ So timing and next steps, we develop

38:46 ↗ city code amendment, return to services

38:48 ↗ and safety and parks and full counsel

38:51 ↗ with the proposed code amendment. Weigh

38:53 ↗ in on proposed changes to state law to

38:55 ↗ aid in enforcement. Continued monitoring

38:58 ↗ of ebike and e- motorcycle trends in

39:00 ↗ Esqua and ongoing education and

39:03 ↗ communications for parents and minors.

39:06 ↗ And we can even educate in the schools

39:07 ↗ to explain to them, hey, this is what is

39:10 ↗ legal and not legal and the type of

39:11 ↗ education. I think those in purchasing

39:14 ↗ them, there should be something for you

39:16 ↗ to be able to even that show you've

39:17 ↗ actually had some sort of training. Um

39:20 ↗ whether it be some like the motorcycle

39:22 ↗ endorsement for example, maybe it's a

39:24 ↗ little different. Maybe it's an ebike

39:25 ↗ endorsement. There's something else that

39:26 ↗ can happen. It doesn't have to be that

39:28 ↗ drastic of a motorcycle. Um but there

39:30 ↗ could be something education wise is

39:32 ↗ there.

39:35 ↗ So the directions need is provide policy

39:37 ↗ direction on the recommended course of

39:39 ↗ action to develop city code to define

39:41 ↗ and regulate e- motorcycle use by minors

39:44 ↗ and on public streets and add support

39:47 ↗ for efforts to better define and

39:48 ↗ regulate an e- motorcycle use in state

39:50 ↗ law to the legislative policy and

39:52 ↗ manual. Um, I think I I would like to

39:55 ↗ also add we on here it says on the city

39:58 ↗ streets we do need to make sure I think

40:00 ↗ there's some verbiage in there about

40:02 ↗ sidewalks because that has become

40:04 ↗ problematic with pedestrians um

40:06 ↗ regarding the fact that they're just not

40:08 ↗ always very careful and it's really

40:10 ↗ fast. And so I think that's also become

40:12 ↗ a complaint um that we receive on a

40:14 ↗ regular basis of some of the citizens

40:19 ↗ or residents, excuse me.

40:22 ↗ All right.

40:24 ↗ So, uh, do you have more to present?

40:27 ↗ >> Oh, all right.

40:28 ↗ >> That's it.

40:29 ↗ >> All right. Uh, I will ask again the

40:32 ↗ clerk whether do we have any indication

40:34 ↗ that anyone of members of the public

40:36 ↗ wish to uh give public comment at this

40:40 ↗ time?

40:42 ↗ >> Not at this time, chair.

40:43 ↗ >> All right. Then we will move to

40:44 ↗ deliberation.

40:49 ↗ >> Make me go first. Um, thank you. Thank

40:52 ↗ you for bringing this to us. Um, the

40:54 ↗ first note I wrote down, which is one

40:56 ↗ thing that I I I want to make sure that

40:59 ↗ as we move this forward, is do our

41:01 ↗ officers have the tools that they need

41:04 ↗ um to promote public safety. That's my

41:06 ↗ number one piece of feedback is um as we

41:09 ↗ move forward with with crafting some um

41:13 ↗ municipal code. Um, I want to make sure

41:15 ↗ that our officers feel like they've got

41:18 ↗ what they need and they feel supported

41:20 ↗ and that they feel um that they know

41:24 ↗ what they can do and what they can't do.

41:26 ↗ I want, you know, so let's drive the

41:28 ↗ ambiguity out of this because I think

41:29 ↗ it's really a really gray area right

41:31 ↗ now. Um it is really difficult in

41:34 ↗ government to be proactive around public

41:37 ↗ safety things because um it looks it

41:40 ↗ looks it can feel like an infringement

41:42 ↗ on people's personal liberties when it's

41:45 ↗ not. It's really being proactive and

41:47 ↗ getting ahead of of uh potential

41:50 ↗ disasters and and so how do we um frame

41:52 ↗ this such that it's not a question you

41:55 ↗ know this it's not a question if

41:56 ↗ someone's going to be harmed it's just a

41:58 ↗ matter of when and how many. So, um I

42:01 ↗ applaud that. Um outreach is I think a

42:04 ↗ great idea. I think going to the

42:05 ↗ schools. I also thought about, well,

42:06 ↗ what about the PTSAs and and getting to

42:09 ↗ the parents where the parents live? Um

42:11 ↗ and reaching them there. Um I loved your

42:14 ↗ comment about this is a walking

42:15 ↗ community, so we need to make our safe

42:17 ↗ our our trails and our sidewalks safe

42:19 ↗ for walkers because we talk a lot about

42:21 ↗ wanting to be walkable. And if this is

42:24 ↗ an impediment to walkability, then I'll

42:26 ↗ I want to make sure that we address

42:28 ↗ that. And and so that's my uh kind of

42:33 ↗ things I'd like to see in in an

42:34 ↗ ordinance coming forward. Uh I want you

42:36 ↗ to think about a couple of of other

42:38 ↗ things. One is how do we rationalize

42:40 ↗ what we want to do with ebikes with the

42:42 ↗ with the uh push to shared ebike

42:45 ↗ services that I know is coming out too.

42:47 ↗ So how do we rationalize those two

42:49 ↗ things where we want to restrict it here

42:52 ↗ but we want to promote it here. So let

42:54 ↗ your chew on that one. Um, and then the

42:56 ↗ other one that I had a experience with

42:59 ↗ just this morning was a scooter blowing

43:01 ↗ through the intersection at 17th and uh,

43:05 ↗ Newport as the light turned red and I

43:07 ↗ was about to enter the intersection um,

43:10 ↗ just where that scooter was and it

43:13 ↗ looked like a kid about, you know, 14

43:15 ↗ and he was going easily 20 mph on the

43:18 ↗ scooter. So, it's not an ebike but it's

43:20 ↗ a e problem.

43:23 ↗ So those those that's my feedback. Um

43:25 ↗ I'm just thrilled that you're taking

43:26 ↗ this on. This is becoming

43:31 ↗ an escalating problem uh in the city and

43:34 ↗ and definitely um has raised conscious

43:36 ↗ level of many of the people who live

43:38 ↗ here.

43:40 ↗ >> Thank you, Deputy Council President.

43:43 ↗ >> Uh thank you. I agree with everything

43:45 ↗ that Council Ray said. Um,

43:49 ↗ I uh like all of the proposed ideas for

43:52 ↗ the code amendment and um I the reason I

43:57 ↗ asked the question about age um I've

44:01 ↗ seen two different times that really

44:03 ↗ concerned me. One was uh a young boy

44:06 ↗ coming down 12th from the woods coming

44:09 ↗ down that big old hill just going like

44:11 ↗ lickety split right down the middle of

44:13 ↗ the road. And the other time uh was uh

44:17 ↗ two boys going up into the Highlands.

44:20 ↗ The older boy looked about 14, but he

44:22 ↗ had his younger sibling with him and he

44:24 ↗ looked about 8 and they were both on

44:26 ↗ ebikes. And so I am worried about that

44:29 ↗ age. Is there an age when we can all

44:31 ↗ agree that a child should not be running

44:34 ↗ an ebike just because of their age

44:36 ↗ factor? So something to consider. Um uh

44:41 ↗ and um I know that there are people who

44:44 ↗ are going to think this is a

44:45 ↗ restriction, but every time you see a

44:48 ↗ child doing something foolish like

44:50 ↗ coming down that 12th, you just think

44:52 ↗ about the life of that child and what

44:55 ↗ could happen if a car did not see them

44:57 ↗ coming and it would be just tragic. So,

45:00 ↗ um I think we uh we are being very

45:04 ↗ responsible to take this on and uh I

45:07 ↗ appreciate the fact that that you are

45:09 ↗ taking it on and that we're having this

45:11 ↗ conversation. Um

45:14 ↗ I also agree that we should uh advocate

45:16 ↗ for this at the state legislature

45:18 ↗ because there are things that we can't

45:20 ↗ do at the city level but the state can

45:23 ↗ do and we can get direction from them

45:25 ↗ too. So, thank you so much for the work

45:27 ↗ on this. Yeah. and it is very very

45:30 ↗ concerning. Um, and I hear from people

45:32 ↗ who are very concerned about it

45:34 ↗ throughout the community. Thank you.

45:36 ↗ >> Thank you.

45:38 ↗ >> Thank you, Deputy Council President. My

45:41 ↗ own experience on this recently was uh

45:44 ↗ late at night uh coming into McDonald's

45:47 ↗ taking the turn off of Newport and

45:49 ↗ there's kids

45:51 ↗ in black, no lights on on these bikes.

45:54 ↗ uh it's pitch dark and they are bombing

45:57 ↗ around the parking lot and you're just

45:59 ↗ like this is dangerous.

46:02 ↗ So it's you know it's it's giving kids

46:04 ↗ capabilities that um you know we we

46:07 ↗ gradually expose them to more and more

46:09 ↗ challenges as as drivers and this is um

46:12 ↗ shortcircuiting it a little bit. Um, you

46:14 ↗ know, my general view is that, um, I

46:18 ↗ don't think we should get out ahead of

46:20 ↗ the state legislature in terms I would

46:23 ↗ like to see a consistent policy

46:26 ↗ um, across King County and the

46:29 ↗ municipalities in King County. I think

46:30 ↗ it's confusing if we have a different

46:33 ↗ um, set of policies as to what's allowed

46:35 ↗ and what's not allowed. But what I would

46:36 ↗ like to see is more tools for the IPD.

46:39 ↗ um whether that is um you know the

46:43 ↗ ability for uh you know to site things

46:46 ↗ or you know

46:49 ↗ infractionary tools um such that they

46:52 ↗ can help um parents understand. I think

46:54 ↗ we should also uh try to reach out to

46:58 ↗ the uh the folks who are selling these

47:01 ↗ things. I had no idea that there was a

47:02 ↗ class one and a class two and a class

47:04 ↗ three or any of that kind of stuff. So

47:07 ↗ um you know I I would generally be in

47:10 ↗ favor of better enforcement tools, but

47:14 ↗ not necessarily getting ahead of the

47:15 ↗ legislature, but definitely putting this

47:17 ↗ in our legislative agenda um and trying

47:19 ↗ to get our legislative group to uh put

47:22 ↗ this together because I think that um

47:26 ↗ you know, we on council have seen kids

47:28 ↗ get injured in traffic related things

47:31 ↗ and it's and it's just about the most

47:33 ↗ horrifying thing that happens in our

47:35 ↗ city. So, um uh I thank the IPD for for

47:39 ↗ its effort and for coming in tonight to

47:41 ↗ talk to us about this and uh ongoing

47:44 ↗ efforts to to try to uh help keep people

47:47 ↗ safe.

47:48 ↗ >> Thank you. Um can I make a comment? Um

47:51 ↗ one thing I would like to note that

47:53 ↗ they're not actually crazy as you as we

47:57 ↗ put them restrictions because I can stop

48:00 ↗ a someone that's self-propelled bicycle

48:03 ↗ if they're going over the speed limit. I

48:05 ↗ can stop them and give them an

48:06 ↗ infraction now. And they should be and

48:08 ↗ all bicycles that are self-propelled are

48:10 ↗ held to the exact same street standards

48:13 ↗ and guidelines as a vehicle. So

48:17 ↗ therefore, those ebikes shouldn't be any

48:19 ↗ different. And I think that's where some

48:21 ↗ of the confusion may be is that they

48:24 ↗ don't understand that just cuz all of a

48:26 ↗ sudden this is a bicycle, even if they

48:27 ↗ were on a pedal bike, maybe before they

48:30 ↗ weren't as trained and didn't go as

48:32 ↗ fast, they themselves still could be

48:34 ↗ infor could be enforced even on a pedal

48:36 ↗ bike. And so I think though that's some

48:38 ↗ of that education piece. And also I'd

48:40 ↗ like to thank Jillian because she put so

48:41 ↗ much time, effort in in putting the

48:43 ↗ presentation and putting um all this

48:45 ↗ communication together as well.

48:49 ↗ This is the point where I ask the city

48:51 ↗ administrator if he's gotten the

48:52 ↗ feedback that he was looking for from

48:53 ↗ our from this body.

48:55 ↗ >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the

48:57 ↗ committee. U I'll look at the staff. We

49:01 ↗ want to come forward with an ordinance.

49:02 ↗ I I think what I'm hearing from the

49:04 ↗ chair is perhaps more on the uh the

49:08 ↗ tools for the officers, not just, you

49:11 ↗ know, completely punitive. Um, and so is

49:15 ↗ that sufficient to to draft something? I

49:18 ↗ know that we're in the midst of working

49:19 ↗ with the city attorney's office on that.

49:21 ↗ Do we have a time frame for when that

49:23 ↗ might be ready to come back to

49:24 ↗ committee?

49:28 ↗ >> Um, to my knowledge, we're still working

49:30 ↗ on that and we don't have a definitive

49:33 ↗ date yet.

49:36 ↗ I would also just say that if the state

49:38 ↗ legislature does move in the next

49:39 ↗ session, that would definitely affect

49:41 ↗ our code amendment and our proposed

49:42 ↗ definition. Those are kind of

49:44 ↗ intersecting issues.

49:45 ↗ >> Do we have the time I asked the city

49:47 ↗ administrator um to add this to our

49:50 ↗ legislative agenda?

49:52 ↗ >> Uh we do and that's still in process and

49:54 ↗ you'll see Shelley Helder here in the

49:57 ↗ next few weeks. Um I'm thinking that

49:59 ↗ that the next meeting of this committee

50:01 ↗ currently has no pending items. Um, and

50:04 ↗ so if this is something that the chief

50:06 ↗ and Jillian thinks that we could come

50:08 ↗ back with on October 28th, which is more

50:10 ↗ or less a month from now.

50:13 ↗ >> So if the committee would like, we would

50:14 ↗ bring the draft ordinance uh to you for

50:17 ↗ your review. It might be a single item

50:20 ↗ um

50:20 ↗ >> I think for the evening.

50:21 ↗ >> That would be fine. I think we would

50:23 ↗ still like to see it. So that would be

50:25 ↗ great. Thank you.

50:26 ↗ >> Great. So we will we'll take that. We

50:28 ↗ will uh work uh conveniently. Uh Jillian

50:31 ↗ Stro also is working on our legislative

50:33 ↗ agenda, so we can have that added to the

50:37 ↗ manual as well. Um and we'll come back

50:39 ↗ to you uh for further discussion and

50:41 ↗ review of the draft ordinance at your

50:43 ↗ October 28 meeting.

50:44 ↗ >> Great. Thank you, city administrator Bob

50:46 ↗ Woods. Appreciate it. Do any of my

50:48 ↗ fellow committee members have any

50:50 ↗ announcements uh or does the

50:51 ↗ administration have any announcements?

50:54 ↗ And with that, at 7:22, we are

50:56 ↗ adjourned.

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF