City Commission - Special Meeting

Good evening.

I'd like to call this special meeting for Tuesday, June 16th, 2026 at 5 p.m. Commission chambers to order. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you deputy city clerk will call please.

Commissioner Davis. Commissioner got labor here. Commissioner Hanley here. Commissioner Larson here. Commissioner Mayer here. Mayor Pro Tem Ottaway here. And may actually go here.

Thank you. Commissioners of motion to excuse. Go ahead. Mr. Hanley.

I move that we excuse commissioner Davis for personal reasons thank you second please.

We should get the second thank you all in favor please say yes yes those no. Your passes six zero. We have an agenda in front of us here on motion to approve the agenda please. Commissioner proton on the way to approve the agenda as presented thank you second please. Commissioner Larson?

I'll second that.

Thank you. Any conversation there? No, thank you.

All right. With that being said, all in favor, please say yes. Yes.

Opposed, no.

Motion passes 6-0.

I don't have any announcements for this evening. And that brings us to our first round of public comments public comment cannot last more than 3 minutes per person please come up the podium state your name and physical address and the timer will start anyone for public comment.

Pam large nine 10 West Bluff Street. And I just wanted to address the ordinance that you're gonna be, I think, voting on tonight. I wasn't able to find information on it online, but I wanted to just share my feelings about this, and I appreciate, all the work that the task force has put into this, but I believe that the fundamental flaw in our current approach to the bikes is we're treating them as bicycles and not really what they are, which is small motorcycles. And motorcycles have to have licensed drivers on them. Well, they don't have to have helmets, but the kids should have helmets. So well, I appreciate the efforts. I think that we should consider having some sort of minimum training for young people under the age of 16 or 17 and Have them licensed if they're going to be writing any type of motorized vehicle around I know in the last week we had one day two accidents involving e-bikes and I'm not the only one who has experiencing groups of kids speeding down the middle of streets, going through stop signs, disregarding traffic. It's really dangerous, and I think the safety of our community is really, could be benefited by having some sort of training and licensing for younger riders in the community. So I urge the task force and the commission to consider this. Thank you. Thank you.

And then that's the public comment, please.

Hi everybody, my name is Jamie and I am on 2525 Division Street.

Last name Jamie?

Glenn.

Thank you.

I'm here to advocate for different language in the ordinance. The e-bike and bike language is currently referred to as a mobility device. And in the disability community, the word mobility device is referenced as a device that helps someone move independently. And it's not a bike or a skateboard or scooter. So I really am here to just advocate for different language in the, in the ordinance. Um, and you know, something to consider. So, all right. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Maureen Gamer, and I live at 720 West K in Marquette. And I just want to say I totally support this ordinance. And Mr. Gottlieb had said that nobody would be happy by the end of this process.

And I want to say I am happy.

I think that it does address a lot of the concerns I have when I'm using the multi-use path. And I think that Commissioner Gottlieb and the EBOI task force who some of them are here and all of the city involved in doing this ordinance did a great job. And I also wanna thank those people who were involved in making the packet for the meeting tonight, because I found it really easy to read and really understandable. My only concern is related to the enforcement of the ordinance, and I hope that the city manager and the police department can come up with some funds to make sure that we have some park patrol, more presence of park patrol on the multi-use path, particularly in the less popular areas like downtown to McClellan Avenue. and also behind the high school to mcclellan avenue especially when school is in session and that's all i have thank you thank you

Hi, my name's Chris Mardock. I'm at 1308 Front. Again, I'd like to express my support for the work that's been done. I think the eBike Task Force has done a really good job here, and I think the language overall is very good, and I appreciate the consideration put in it. The one thing I'd like to see or recommend, perhaps, is that there be some determinant within it for speed limits along the multi-use path. Just to make it clear and concise for people, because what I deem an acceptable speed might be different than what the enforcing officer or what pedestrians deem an acceptable speed. And I could see a range of speed limits along the multi-use paths being available. Dense areas, 15. Extended areas as you start to get out of town into Harvey where it's less populated, maybe 20. And that could be applied across the board, regardless of type of transport. And I think that would make it very clear to people where they need to be when they're using that path. So that was all. Thank you.

Thank you.

Of course, I'm going to talk. I know you guys are sick of me. Barb, outside 1324 North Front Street. I appreciate the proposed ordinance that finally recognizes that e-bikes and pedestrians do not mix well in our downtown business districts. But I'm disappointed that that concern apparently ends at the edge of the DDA boundary. Again, I'm advocating for the sidewalk thing. A pedestrian struck by an e-bike on a residential sidewalk is no less injured than one that is struck in the DDA region. So as you know, for many people, sidewalks are not simply pathways. They are protected spaces where parents are walking with their kids, seniors, disabled people, that type of thing. When you exclude most city sidewalks from these protections, you're effectively telling residents their safety manners less than the experience of someone shopping downtown. I'm not really laughing at that. You know, the other thing I thought about too is, you know, if you've got e-bikes on sidewalks because, you know, you want them to be getting to school safely, and you think about people backing out of their driveways, maybe they're in a hurry. The speed of an e-bike on a sidewalk is so much more than it is for a walker or even a regular biker, and the danger of someone on an e-bike in that limited visibility. I would just point that out. I don't know if we've really even talked about that. We spent a considerable amount of time encouraging people to walk, improving accessibility, and investing in safe routes. Sidewalks should, I really feel, should remain a safe place and not become corridors for these e-bikes that are heavy and motorized. I think that's really all I want to say. Again, thanks. Thank you.

Zach Youngs, 816 West Cave. I'm for the new ordinance. Five years in coming, it sounds great. I'm glad just to be listened. You guys took the time with us and we're a small community that is growing and anything that I can help with you guys, I'm more than welcome to help you guys. So thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else for public comment?

Grant Combs, 801 North 4th Street, Department 1. I do want to say I think this ordinance is a great step in the right direction, and thank the Commission for drafting it so quickly. However, I think that electric micromobility devices, other than those used for accessibility purposes, are not safe on the sidewalk, whether or not they are downtown, for a variety of reasons, many of which Barb mentioned. I think it's worth asking why these riders are not comfortable in the streets. We have no protected bike lanes in the city and the ones that we do have are only painted and are often spotty in terms of where they are and actually aren't painted. Fourth Street is a great example of that where there will be a block of paint and then it'll be missing for a while and then reappear again. So I think it's important to remind you guys this is the only tip of the iceberg in terms of what the task force recommendations are, and that Marquette should still move towards designing streets that are safe for all methods of transportation, not just cars. Lastly, I think that if cyclists feel safer on the streets and have their own designated cycling space, that it will alleviate some of the traffic on the multi-use path by diverting some of those who are using it, either for commuting purposes or because they don't feel safe riding on the street. Thanks.

Thank you.

My name is Julie Benda, 123 Rock Street. And I also want to say thank you for this ordinance, pushing it through before summer really hits us. And I think echoing a lot of the sentiments in combination with how unsafe our streets seem to be, but also how we have kids that are using these bikes as vehicles and maybe don't have all the education for that. You know, I've been watching and paying attention to how other cities are dealing with this. Minneapolis just passed an age limit of 15. I don't think we have to exclude kids from bikes, but maybe, as a previous resident said, that there is a way we can start to integrate a permitting system. Or you have to be with a guardian if you're under a certain age. Ways that we can, while we're building our city streets to be more bike friendly, keep our kids safe as well.

Thank you. Anyone else for public comment? Anyone else? Public comment is now closed. Thank you all. That brings us to our consent agenda. Commissioners, is there a motion? Commissioner Lyson?

I move that we accept the consent agenda as presented.

Thank you.

Second, please.

Pro Tem, out of the way. Second. Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none will bring it to a vote on favor please say yes yes those no motion passes 6 0. And that gets us to what we're here for tonight's our public hearing. I think we're going to start with. We're going to start with background first okay thank you.

at the may twenty six regular meeting the city commission directed the city manager to drafted ordinance permitting the operation of electric mobility devices under seven hundred fifty watts within the city including but not limited to class one class two and class three electric mobility devices on the city's multi-use path and further that the proposed ordinance include provisions establishing safe and prudent speed requirements as well as clear standards and penalties addressing careless and reckless writing to ensure public safety that recommendation followed significant discussion and debate on the topic in late twenty twenty five in response to the exponential increase in the popularity and local adoption of various electric mobility devices the city commission directed the creation of the e bike and multi use path task force composed of local citizens to research the topic source community input and provide recommendations for adjustment to city code and policy after the task force presented their recommendations to the city commission earlier this year staff evaluated the efficacy and feasibility of implementation and the city commission discussed possible paths forward in a work session prior to the may twenty six meeting At a state level, legislation in 2018 provided limited regulation of most low-powered electric mobility devices, as well as a framework for local governing authority regarding certain devices, and the law now includes working definitions for most electric mobility devices. The ordinance being proposed tonight attempts to address the concerns raised by the commission during the May 26 meeting and work session. The ordinance as written amend city code chapter 46 and would allow for users to utilize the following devices on the multi-use path. Wheeled devices designed to transport one or more persons and propelled solely by human power. Electric bicycles as defined by state law. This includes class one, two, and three e-bikes. Electric skateboards and electric personal mobility devices as defined by state law. This includes electric scooters and one wheels among other similar devices. All other wheeled devices powered solely by human power and an electric motor not greater than 750 watts. The ordinance also includes a new section aimed at prohibiting reckless riding regardless of what device is being used. And also eliminates now redundant sections related to skateboard regulations and to penalties for violation. Finally, the ordinance amends the regulations related to mobility device usage on sidewalks, fully prohibiting users from riding devices on sidewalks throughout much of the downtown development district. The ordinance was introduced and this public hearing was scheduled during the commission's June 8th meeting. in accordance with provisions of city charter section three dash one eight four this ordinance is deemed necessary for the preservation of the public safety of the residents of the city of marquette and will take immediate effect fiscal effect none by this action recommendation adopt ordinance twenty six dash oh five alternatives as determined by the commission.

Thank you to the clerk. At this time i'd like to open up the floor for the public hearing. And if you have any other reason to come up front, is that OK?

Do you want us to do a presentation first?

Want to do the presentation first?

We can do that. And then open it up just so that there's some information. OK. OK.

Sounds good to me.

Perfect. Sorry to confuse you on that one.

It's all right.

All right. Sorry, just one moment please. So the order is intended to be, we'll do a presentation and then go ahead and open that up and then go from there. And this presentation is gonna look and sound awfully similar. I'll probably slow it down from the last time just because we ran through it pretty quickly knowing that we were looking to schedule a public hearing. So again, forgive me if you've seen these before and if this sounds familiar because this is pretty much similar to the last one and we are looking to maybe expand a little bit more. So tonight, as I mentioned, We are presenting a proposed ordinance related to those electric mobility devices, including e-bikes and some of those similar low power devices that we talked about. Really, the purpose for the information I'm going to be sharing that Annie's going to also chime in and help as she was an integral part in writing the ordinance and really looking at the language that is being used in this ordinance. So really this is meant to summarize the ordinance and kind of go through that and the purpose and really the intent of what that language meant. So we talked a little bit about this last time and really looking at the public hearing next for public comment and making sure that we are covering all of those points. So, this issue has been a hot topic and has been in the news a lot. Even just last week, we had the mention of some news headlines talking about e-bikes and some accidents. So, really, this is a very relevant conversation to have. And because of those e-bikes and other things like scooters and e-motos, since it's grown so much, we really needed to talk about how we wanted to address those. We're seeing them. We're seeing more of them. And I'm hoping we're seeing less of those emotives that we talked about because those are not legal in the city limits. And I'll say that as many times as I need to. So so because of that, we do need to have some clear, clear rules and regulations so that we can balance the point of having access safety, and really the practical realities of enforcement. And that is something that we really need to make sure that we're considering on this, which is why we created this ordinance the way that we did. So just real quick, at the May 26th regular city commission meeting, the city commission directed the city manager to prepare an ordinance addressing those electric mobility devices and focusing on that 750 watts and below, low powered mobility devices. Now there are some complications with state law on those definitions when you get outside of e-bikes, which Annie will kind of get into here shortly. So that direction followed really a longer conversation and longer policy discussion that actually began many years ago, but 2025 when the e-bike task force was created. And that was, again, the e-bike and multi-use path task force. So that task force gathered a lot of input and developed those recommendations that they presented to the city commission. And after those recommendations were presented, we really, city staff really took the time to review those and focused on the feasibility and the legal complications or concerns before we drafted the ordinance that we had. We spent a significant amount of time obviously working with the police department. We do have a memo that is prepared that kind of highlights some of the approach for that. And that was part of our consideration as well. So creating the ordinance really needed to consider that balance for access and safety, like I said, and it's making sure that those rules are clear and we can actually enforce them. One of the things we talk about with speed limits on this is putting a speed limit, a blanket speed limit of 15 miles an hour may not be appropriate in some of the more congested areas. Also, determining 15 miles an hour on an e-bike or a small scooter is difficult to prove. And the ticket you would be writing or the citation you're writing is going to be difficult to defend at that point. So when we say safe and prudent speed, that leaves a little bit more of that judgment in order to say 15 miles an hour is still too fast. And we know that there would be some of those instances we can perceive or see. Also, we need to really consider what state law has, and that's what we're going to kind of move into with Annie in just a moment, because a lot of this needed to mirror that state law. So the state and local laws that we currently have right now, Michigan law provides that broader framework and state legislation really was adopted in 2018 to establish those definitions. And you're gonna see those definitions kind of mirrored in our ordinance. And that is really that baseline rule for many of those low power devices. Under that framework, we talk about class one e-bikes are generally allowed on those paths unless not allowed or not permitted by the local ordinance. Class twos and threes are not allowed unless the local municipality allows them. And that's where we at the city can have that ability or that authority to make that decision to allow those on our multi-use path. So state law then also required you know this anything that changes on our multi-use path required a public hearing which is why we had recommended scheduling that for tonight. So this is also with e-bikes and all bicycles still need to follow rules and laws that the roads you know that you have in the roads as well. So similar to if you're in the road you do have to abide by those signs, speed limits, things like that. So that doesn't exclude it this none of this is excluding any of that so um Moving on to, we've talked about what is allowed, but this ordinance is not focusing just on e-bikes. This is focusing on behavior for all types of devices or uses on the multi-use path. But we do have definitions of what is allowed. And even right now, when we talk about e-bikes, it is difficult to distinguish between the one, twos, and threes now. But we all agree that the behavior needs to be the same and needs to be safe. So this allows us to be able to enforce any of that behavior, whether it's a pedal bike or whether it is an electric bike. But I will also, again, repeat the fact that e-motos are not allowed on the multi-use path. Those are not 750 watts and do not have pedals. Or on our streets or in the city limits. Take it somewhere else. So a good time to remind that here. Really, we, you know, the draft ordinance, what is this really allowing us to do? It's really clarifying quite a bit of this. I'm not going to go into too much of these details because we're going to kind of jump into those in some detail here. But we're focusing on that balance on what's allowed on the multi-use path. What is the behavior? What are we expecting? And how can we enforce that? This also does address the riding of any device, pedal bike or e-bike or anything, in the downtown area that is a congested area. We had ordinance in there that had some kind of wonky times in there that you had to remember. Is it 10 AM or 10 PM? So this clarifies that and just says there's no riding on the sidewalk there in the downtown. Park your bike and walk in or park your bike and walk or take a different route if you're driving through or stick to the streets, which, you know, you can ride in. We are not addressing or talking necessarily about sidewalks anywhere else, but we do have some guidance and some opinions that we've received from our police department, which is really what supported us with just addressing the downtown area and business district at this point. So I'm going to just kind of kick it over now to Annie on talking about the specifics of what this ordinance is and where we received some of that language and the direction we went for this. So go ahead.

Yeah.

So to start off, this is just what we already went over at the May 26 meeting. You all, as the commission, directed us to draft an ordinance. From there, city clerk Kyle Whitney and I worked to start putting some stuff together to very initially review. He was present at a lot of those e-bike task force meetings and had a lot of really helpful resources and materials, including recommendations from the task force. He's not here tonight, which is why I'm going over this. So once we had that sort of compiled, we collaborated across the clerk's office, manager's office, police department, city attorney to draft what is presented today. And then mentioning again, the police department does have plans for enforcement in place if and when this ordinance is approved. So I just wanted to go over the language in the ordinance and how we got there pretty much. So the first section is definitions. Definitions were pulled directly from state law and reference state law to maintain relevance. So as you'll see, it says an electric bicycle as defined by MCL 257.13 , that's intended that if the state law definitions ever adjust slightly, that our code would still be up to date and would no longer would make sure to mirror state law still. The devices covered under B, which is electric mobility device, are intended to cover all devices discussed and included in the motion from last meeting. And then those devices under A, the human powered mobility devices, Is included to ensure that behavior regulations are enforced against all devices, including human powered bicycles, skateboards, scooters, etc. And then I do want to acknowledge as well that in our state law to make this change, all of these changes still. The ADA is still going to apply, so none of these changes will supersede any ADA regulations. And the intent of including the human powered mobility devices was to recognize those bicycles rather than other mobility devices. Next one. So the next section that we adjusted, 4693, was just recognizing the designation of multi-use path. all mobility devices defined in 4692, which is the previous slide, are permitted on the multi-use path. And then we specified in C there, all motorized vehicles not meeting the definition of a mobility device are prohibited from traveling on such designated multi-use paths. This is to make sure that we are covering all of our bases. Again, emotos aren't allowed on the path, as Karen was mentioning. Mopeds, golf carts, any, I don't know. People come up with some wild stuff, and we want to make sure that we're covered anything that is not defined in the previous section under state law, which covers, as we discussed at the last meeting, segways, one wheels, e-bikes, et cetera, under 750 watts. All of those are not allowed. Um, this is the like nitty gritty. I think the, um, the stuff we worked on the most. So the language for reckless activity that is prohibited. Um, Kyle and I work together to review a lot of other, um, municipalities, current ordinances and how they're phrased. And then we also worked closely with the police department on what they're seeing on the ground. What do they need to enforce? What do they want to have the ability to. regulate that they're seeing as dangerous behavior to make sure that we have all of our bases covered. So the first one, no person shall travel on the multi-use path at a speed greater than what is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for actual and potential hazards. In every event, speed shall be controlled as may be necessary to avoid colliding with the anyways. This language originated from Kirkland, Washington. That ordinance there has been in place since 2022. And as far as we've researched, has been pretty effective. And that was presented in the research to the e-bike task force. It covers a speed restriction without creating an exact and unenforceable speed limit. This is our way of being sure that we can enforce speed regulations. And we also know that a safe speed when you're going through South Beach area and there's no one else on the path is going to be different than a safe speed when there's a festival in Lower Harbor and there's a bunch of people and it's a narrow section of the path. So this is intended to give a broader understanding that gives our law enforcement more ability to use their judgment um b is um married language from a few different ordinances no person shall fail to exercise full control over the mobility device they are using on any street parking lot sidewalk or designated multi-use path So I don't know if anyone has seen people doing wheelies on the street. I know it's really uncommon around here. But the intent of this is you need to maintain full control of whatever device you're on, whether that's an e-bike or a regular bike, because I've seen it on regular bikes too. And so this also note that this covers any street, parking lot, sidewalk, or multi-use path. So we're seeing a lot of this behavior on the streets as well and on sidewalks everywhere in the city. We're all seeing it. So this gives again that broader definition to make sure that our law enforcement are able to enforce what they need to see is um saying that every person on the path needs to stay to the right side and cannot occupy more than half of the path across so this is intended to prevent overly large devices that may meet the definitions of a mobility device in an earlier section but would be too large for the path and then it's also to make sure we don't have gaggles of e-bikers all the way across the path to make sure there's safe room for all users across the path and then in the next slide D goes sort of along with C to make sure that anyone who's being passed or is passing is passing on the left and is passing safely these are sort of guess being polite while you're on a bike and that's I guess the intent of all of this is what we think might be common sense or when we talk about we wish that everyone could just be nice on the path sometimes codifying it making sure that we're able to address improper behavior when it's happening and before something dangerous occurs this gives us that ability to to address, hey, you passed that person unsafely before there's actually an accident, if that's an issue that we're seeing. For E, any person entering or crossing a designated multi-use path at an uncontrolled point shall yield to traffic on the path. This has just meant we've got lots of people coming off of the beaches onto the path at not designated spots. And we don't want people coming straight from the beach just walking right out on the path, not looking left and right. getting swiped by whoever's there. So that's just to make sure everyone's looking both ways before they get onto the path if they're coming out at an uncontrolled point. And that covers every user of the path, whether you are walking or on a mobility device, whatever it is, look both ways. For F, users must obey stop and yield signs and city officials if they're redirecting traffic. This is, again, kind of basic, but we want to make sure that we're covering all of our stops. Any traffic signs, temporary and official, need to be obeyed by all users. And then lastly, G, no device shall be used to carry more persons at one time than the number for which it is designed and equipped. Another thing I'm sure lots of us have seen, lots of people piled on to small devices and waiting to see who falls off first. It's kind of... Makes your heart race a little bit. So this is mirrored from state law as well. A lot of what we have mirrored from state law is intended to make it easier to enforce a violation of this ordinance is a civil infraction rather than a misdemeanor under state law. So this rather than giving a. kid a misdemeanor for violating one of these things that is illegal under state law currently it gives us more flexibility in enforcement and to make sure that education is happening alongside it and having these in a local ordinance gives us a little bit more flexibility so yeah that is mirrored from state law but it's just to say the device needs to be designed and equipped to hold that number of people. So you can't get a fancy mod if it's not designed for more than one person. Lastly, the mobility device used on sidewalks. This was something that was brought up a couple of times regarding the DDA district. So previously this section had very specific time restrictions for mobility and bike use on sidewalks in the downtown district. It was pretty confusing, pretty difficult to enforce. So this is meant to be a more direct way of saying, walk your wheels, don't ride a bike in the downtown district when there's sidewalk cafes right next to you and lots of stuff going around. But again, those ADA guidelines are still in place. So that does not apply to any ADA devices. And then the last one, temporary restrictions on mobility devices. This is just to make sure if anything comes up, any festivals, special events, construction happens where we need to close down a certain area to these devices, the police chief and city manager have the ability to do that temporarily. And then further down, I didn't include this in the presentation, but we did repeal an outdated skateboard section that is mostly covered under this entire ordinance because skateboards would count as a human powered mobility device. So all of the behavior regulations would apply to skateboards rather than having two whole pages designated to them. The other part that was repealed was the A violation in chapter one of city code as the city clerk's office has been reviewing the entirety of city code. It is included in there that any violation of the entire code is a civil infraction unless otherwise noted. And so because it's stated in chapter one, it is redundant to include that again, every single section that it's a violation. So that's why that's removed. It is still a violation. It's just a cleanup sort of moment for us.

And that's all I have.

So one last thing I just wanted to mention that we didn't necessarily cover in the presentation but it's been an ongoing conversation especially now as we look out onto 4th Street here and it's a beautiful clean slate of black and talking about line painting but we're looking you know we did have the active transportation plan that was adopted by the city commission and that is still very much at the forefront of our conversations especially as we start planning for capital. I think it was also mentioned just in the comments here as well, are those lines and consistency and quality of lines as well need to be addressed. And that is something we are looking at within our budget. It is an important piece of this as well, so that if somebody is needing to get from point A to point B very quickly, they don't have to feel that they only can travel safely on the multi-use path. They can then go and move into the street and have that, you know, beginning baseline of some of that infrastructure there. But we do need to get those lines painted right now where they're not painted. But that is very much a point that we are considering here and that we need to be prioritizing. And we've been having those conversations at the department level. But that's not in the presentation and it wasn't in our recommendations either because that is something operationally we are already looking and planning to do if we're not already doing it now. So with that, we're done with our presentation. So if you would like to conclude, go ahead.

Thank you all. Very thorough. Well done. At this time, we will open up the public hearing. Ordinance 2605. Anybody wishing to speak, please come up to the podium. State your name and address if you have not already done so.

Hi, Chris Mardock again. Thank you. A couple of quick things. One, I want to reinforce what was mentioned earlier in terms of excluding the sidewalk across the city, not just in the DDA. I think that's really important. I also have young children that often are on the sidewalk in front of our house. I see many, many kids out. I think it's just probably good practice because of the speed of e-bikes as an e-bike rider myself. Two, I'd love to see some funds allocated to sign the multi-use paths so that people on that are aware of these things. I know we have some signage that already exists. Obviously, I think that'll need to be updated. And then two other outreaches would be, one, tourists. I think we would all agree in the summer in particular, there's a huge number of tourists that are in the region that are taking advantage of the multi-use path and the other areas, and we need to educate them on how Marquette is set up, as it might be different than the community that they're from, particularly across Michigan. And then the other one would just be with NMU at the college and just educating new and returning students. I think we would all agree that the dozen of us here don't represent the entirety of the population of Marquette, and so there's gonna be a lot of outreach necessary to make sure that this is communicated well to everybody involved. And I think those are two bodies that we're going to be a bulk of it during the warm summer writing season yeah that thank you appreciate.

Thank you anyone else for the public hearing. Anyone else. Seeing none the public hearing is closed. That brings us to the commission.

I move that we adopt ordinance twenty six oh five as presented.

Sir, second, please. Mr. Gottlieb, a second discussion.

I do have some. First, can I ask, I assume it's already part of it, but do we have signs, like a plan for signs already happening? Can I ask the city manager that? Awesome.

We would be looking to put up specific signs that allow in certain points. We do need to make sure that we are complying with any other state law that requires certain signage, but that is in the plans and that's not presented in the ordinance or tonight because that is operational.

Okay, and then the other thing, it's been brought up a bunch of times, and I guess part of me always thought that bikes weren't allowed on sidewalks. Is there a reason we've left out the rest of the city and not just wrapped it into this ordinance?

I don't necessarily put the police department on perhaps the stand on this one, but I do, I just want to say also, there are certain areas, especially at drop-off and pickup for bikes, or for schools, where there is a mix of Bikes, cars, and buses. I'm thinking specifically about our middle school area that I personally would not feel comfortable at all having my child on the street with those cars. I've seen how everybody drives. So in consulting with our police department, they also had advised perhaps maybe we don't want to be pushing our kids onto some of those bikes or onto those streets.

as well and i understand that i mean i i don't like to let my seven-year-old or sorry nine-year-old ride on the street on the streets when we are on our way to the bike path i tend to keep him on the sidewalk so i completely understand that that's all that i have thank you commissioner gutley

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. May I ask a couple questions before I do my statement? I noticed Segways have been specifically singled out. I did some quick research. A Segway has a battery of about 1,500 watts. And not that I've seen a Segway in Marquette ever, but is this an issue, the fact that the Segways have a larger battery than what we're seeing for other mobility devices?

So the definition of an electric skateboard allows wattage up to 2,500 in state law. And that is traditionally what they're made at as a starting basis. So any electric skateboard could be allowed up to 2,500 under our ordinance. And there's no way for us to reduce that without saying they're not allowed at all.

Okay. Thank you.

Also, they haven't made new segways since 2020.

I can't imagine them coming.

I looked that up.

And Commissioner Gottlieb, I think a further point here is we've done our best to mirror the provisions in state law and the language that's allowed under state law, including, you know, kind of the comments Jamie made about, you know, the use of the mobility device term. State law differentiates between kinds of mobility devices, whether or not they're for providing accessibility versus the kind of locomotion that we're talking today. So we've really tried to echo state language in these ordinances.

That's greatly appreciated. Thank you for saying that. One more question before my statement. The DDA sidewalk restriction, just for clarification, does not apply to the multi-use path where it rolls through the DDA. Are we all in agreement on that?

So that restriction is specific to sidewalks on specific streets and the multi-use path is not a sidewalk as defined by state law and also is not adjacent to those streets that are defined in the ordinance.

I just want to make sure everybody knows we're all on the same page here. With that said, I do have a short statement I'd like to When Mayor Hanley asked me about a year ago if I would chair the e-bike multi-use pathway task force, I recall saying that nobody would be happy with the results of the task force suggestions and it would require compromise. I was right. I think, except for one person. I doubted that anybody would be 100% satisfied by the motion made, but I think this is a start. I don't think this motion is the end of the e-bike controversy. Obviously more work needs to be done, including signage, ideally widening the path, placement of a center line in some areas at least, and future consideration to speed limits of technology permits. I realize that the issue we are addressing cannot be solved as a simple ordinance, but the ordinance points to what the task force suggested. It's the biker, not the bike. That's the problem. The ordinance is just the beginning. It's not the final action. And I'll stop here, but may want to say more after I hear what my fellow commissioners have to say.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Thank you, Mayor. One thing that Barb has so kindly brought up is the sidewalk issue. And it's something that, because she brought it up, I've kind of taken notice since the first time she brought it up. And almost every time I see an e-biker, specifically a bike, on the sidewalk, it's usually someone who's younger or someone who's maybe not as capable as an older person who could be out on the road. Every time that I've seen that person riding, they haven't been doing so in a fast manner, which leads me to believe they're probably more comfortable on the sidewalk. Not saying that those people don't, you know, need a required space on the road to make things safer because I think in the grand scheme of things that would be amazing. I think that's where we need to get. I just don't know that we can paint, you know, one action across the entire city from that stance. I think it makes it very difficult. I think it makes it very difficult from enforcement. But I do have a question because we're really discussing the behavior aspect of it here and I just wonder if Part of this can kinda lead into that. 46-93.5, why are we limiting the language only to the action on the multi-use paths? If you bring that back up, if we included things like sidewalks where the reckless action is taking place, then our police would be able to do something about that.

Are you talking about the temporary restrictions?

So 46-935. Oh, 93, I'm sorry.

Reckless activity, I believe.

Yep, reckless activity.

I think, you know, behavior on the streets is governed by motor vehicle code already. But what about the sidewalks, though?

What? What about the sidewalks? So if we included no person shall travel on the multi-use path or sidewalks at a speed that's greater than what is reasonable. I mean, that's just exercising the full control. I think that it's a little bit different myself, but that's just my thought on that. I think it gives our police department the ability to say, hey, this person's riding much faster than they should be in this spot on the sidewalk. It's maybe something that's just a small oversight that we could correct.

I think that would be reasonable to add noted on that one.

No further comments.

I think that would match the intent of what we were trying to do. Absolutely.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. Thanks to staff for putting this together. A couple questions that I still have. I would agree with Mayor Pro Tem about including the sidewalk on there and just questions about biking on sidewalks. In general, I do think that there are still some potential issues for biking outside of those areas on sidewalks just due to the size of the sidewalks, bikes being relatively larger than folks on the sidewalk as well. i certainly understand the issues with children and otherwise but i do think you know bikes on sidewalks are still problematic and that we should consider something a little bit larger larger than you know what is what is kind of said here that extends to other locations as well now Class 3 e-bikes, just by following, here's just a question, is that, you know, we say Class E bikes, you know, as they are regulated by the state. Does that inherently include, you know, people under 14 not being allowed to use them? And then also helmets required for anybody under 18 on Class 3 e-bikes?

It does not supersede state law that requires that.

Okay, so that still applies here and is inherent in that. But do we need to state anything like that on signage or otherwise?

No, because state law applies no matter what.

Okay, got you.

We'll be part of an education piece, though.

Yes. Sure. And then I think, you know, somebody else, maybe it was Commissioner Hanley that asked about signage. You know, is it possible at some point in time, you know, that a signage plan come to us so we just have some understanding on where those signage, that signage is going to be placed and what that is going to be, whether that's being at major crossings, downtown DDA and coordination as well, allowing, showing people that, you know, not allowed on sidewalks, you know, anymore in the future. But I certainly think with the change, you know, having some sort of

plan in place that is you know public facing would be important uh so we are considering and we've been talking about looking at a a web page with all that information however um i hesitate to wait to bring a plan to you before we execute it so i'm just going to probably exert the city manager you know abilities to go ahead and do that but i think it's really important that we come back and we explain where we're putting things and um if there's other um you know other areas that we've missed that you see while you're out there so And that was meant as a fun, playful thing.

And then my final piece is that we've got, there's a little bit of catch-all language in there about devices under 750 watts. Are we unintentionally allowing something that doesn't exist? You know, some Mad Max style. I mean, it's a little bit undefined, right? It's a little bit undefined. I say that jokingly, but it's a little bit undefined. Are you leaving something open that we don't want to have by including devices under 750?

I believe that we did a pretty thorough, and of course there's always that possibility because the things that we are seeing come up certainly, but what we wanted to do with this ordinance was not have to come back every time that there's new invention of something with two or three wheels. So we really addressed size, the fit on the multi-use path, the wattage. We talked about why maybe perhaps scooters have a larger wattage or skateboards have larger wattage than we'd have on a bicycle. I think that we're pretty confident on how we addressed all of those. And I'm not by any means saying that it's perfect, but I think we pretty much covered all of that.

And I think that was just my thought. Let's see what the other commissioners think.

We spent the most time probably on that, really trying to make sure we have closed all of those loops.

The human-powered asset.

The human-powered asset, yeah.

State law provides limits on what these devices can be, too. So there's language in there that I do feel like covers the invention of a new device. Sure.

It's always going to be something new. Yeah. Fair enough. I think that concludes my questions.

Commissioner Mayer.

Thank you, Your Honor. I guess to start off with one of the first points I had was about sidewalks. I would say Commissioner Ottaway's point about the reckless use aspect, I would be very agreeable to that. maybe that tweak instead of aggressively looking at the sidewalks as a whole. I think that does fit within the scope of what this is trying to accomplish, and it's a way around a potential issue there. Because I can think of scenarios where both prohibiting it and allowing it both make sense. So I think that's a great way to handle that. I do just feel like someone needs to voice some... For the sake of pedestrians in this community, you know, I'm looking through parts of this talking about yielding to traffic on the bike path or Well, that's what I'm worried. It's gonna turn into but the multi-use path is At one, let's see here, another section, it talks about not impeding the normal and reasonable movement of other users. If you're going 20 miles per hour on an e-bike, a pedestrian probably is impeding your movement. You know, there's, I'm a little, and we're talking about this concept of painting a center line, which there's studies that back this up with vehicular traffic. If you paint lines in any strategic way, it will, people will naturally slow down. There's the perception you're on a narrower lane. People drive slower. I feel like at that point, though, if we're doing a center lane on the multi-use path, we are effectively turning it into a roadway for bikes. Yeah, essentially. Now, with that being said, me and my family, we walk a lot. We do own bikes. I do not have an e-bike. I did borrow one yesterday, though, and went from all of North Marquette all down Lakeshore all the way down to South Marquette so I could get an idea of what we're really talking about. North Marquette, I mean, there's lots of straightaways. It's fantastic. Once you start getting into Central and then down to South Marquette, a lot of blind spots, a lot of twists and turns. And I took it out at beautiful weather time, middle of the day, and there was people everywhere on the multi-use path. Had a very, very small human run across and going through the park that cuts through there. Lots of great options to test out how these devices work, so I felt like I understood them better. But it still is lingering in my head that if we are going to just allow this, I'm concerned that, and that's still allowed on sidewalks, like where do people walk anymore? That's where I'm struggling with that component of this, is that this feels like we're preventing that from still being a thing in this community by allowing this complete lead. I don't have anyone's response to that, but that is the biggest thing I'm wrestling with right now.

I have one more question, if that's okay.

Can I say something? I'm going to go ahead and okay. You know, I kind of said this last meeting when it comes down to a very good comment that Commissioner Gottlieb said is that it's, you know, it's the person, it's not the it's not the bike and I'm gonna be the guy that puts faith in humanity and says that you know we've got to learn that when we're on a any kind of a public path that the public is around us and that we have to be aware public awareness of you know what what our surroundings are education starts at home for this and if your child is under age or not mentally able to understand what it means to operate a device in a safe and responsible manner, then don't put them in that position. That's just irresponsible parenting. I'm not going to tell you that you can't trust a kid every time that they go out, because I was one of those kids, I'm sure. I'm excited to see that this is a very, very real beginning to some ideas that are going to make hopefully our community a safer place for bikers and walkers and joggers and everybody else. Because from the planning side of things, I remember back when we said, well, when you have a four lane area that comes into a two lane area, traffic slows down because things get a little bit tighter. and your line of sight and I'm glad that Commissioner Mayer brought that topic up because it is part of the planning process. And then working in conjunction with our active transportation plan that's going to be in place, If we can just open our minds and our eyes and say, you know, we're giving options to all of these people, whether they want to drive on the bike path or work out in the street, whatever makes the most sense for their capability. We're doing our best to accommodate as many users as possible. So where do people walk nowadays? That's a really good question. They walk cautiously. I mean, I saw a lot of people out today. I'm looking forward to maybe options outside of the bike path altogether. But we've got seven miles of bike path out there along the lake that people are loving to death. And we just have to be respectful of each other's space. So, Commissioner Hanley, you've got something else?

I think I'm going to ask Karen. There's just about a sign that I would like to see.

Okay. I'm looking forward to that, too. The signage component there, that's going to be something. And I can tell you, just from sitting at Shires Park today, the stop sign that's there is not, nobody pays attention to that. And that's something, too, where if we do get some effective signage out there, maybe those types of things will be respect a little bit more and unfortunately they might see a ticket. I've got one question in regards to that. If you're 11 years old and you're riding around on an e-bike like an absolute crazy Mad Max man over here and you get pulled over and you get a ticket, who's paying for that ticket? The parents? Do the parents get the ticket? Does the child get the ticket? How does that work?

Do you want to answer this, or I can go for it?

So if we stop any juvenile, and that has always been the question, because how do you ID them? So if we do stop a juvenile, and this would pertain to any incident with a juvenile. It doesn't have to be on a bike, any time we come across that. We're going to get a name, phone number. We immediately call the parents. And in many cases, we have the parents literally come to the spot wherever we are and meet with us. If we are issuing a ticket, yes, his name can still go on it. But the parents' information and everything else would also go on that ticket. And whether he has to work that off his allowance or if that's just the parents, that's up to them. But they are definitely both listed on the citation. And then we would turn them over to the parents.

Thank you have to frequent or that's what I was I know I knew you're going to say it and I'm really glad to hear it but that's just wanted to be to be said out loud today yes you have something to go it.

I'd like to address something mister mayor said. Basically, the class two, class three bike has left the barn already. The police can't necessarily distinguish a class two or three when they are being ridden as a class one from a class one bike. And so. Class one bikes being already allowed on the multi-use path. It makes it really difficult for the police to say, well, you're riding a class two, you're riding class three. They can't tell just by the way it's being written necessarily. Obviously, you can ride them too fast. And that's what the ordinance or too dangerously or recklessly. This ordinance basically accepts reality as it is, but attempts to enforce, as Annie said, courtesy and common sense.

Your Honor, if I follow up there to Commissioner Gottlieb. I agree, you're right. Right now, I think people are using whatever they want on the multi-use path. But I think this goes back to the individual and the behavioral aspect of this is... okay, now we're going to make it so they're allowed to be using these things that they weren't supposed to be to begin with. How are we also going to actually enforce or expect people to follow the new rules as they are anyways? Walk me through, what does it actually look like for someone to get a ticket or civil infraction for this, if you don't mind? Are we going to have officers pulling people over on bikes? What does this actually look like?

So there is actually I have reviewed in e-bike enforcement plan from the police department which really talks about what they're currently doing and and feel free to jump in at any time but really looking at utilizing park patrol that we have right now but then also talking about supplementing that also with additional time from our police department for getting another person on a on a bike or having police vehicles at certain areas um don't necessarily want to tell where all those secret hiding spots are but um but no really looking at utilizing park patrol and having that visibility um and and making sure that we are following up on those complaints and and waiting to to see where some of our problem areas are um but you know you you're not gonna you really want to avoid chasing somebody down essentially. You really want to avoid something like that, but you really want to have that ability to be there on the bike path knowing that they're there. But I'll leave it to you if you want to clarify any of that.

Sure. So the nice piece with Park Patrol is Park Patrol's area that we use for the summertime when it's busy literally follows the multi-use path. The beaches, parks all line up along those areas. So they're already inherently in those areas to begin with. Being able to put them on a bike and on our department's e-bikes allows them to be out of the car and be in those areas more often than our officers right now. And we are running short. We're not fully staffed right now, but that doesn't mean that officers aren't out and actively looking for those things when we can. We also do post overtime for a lot of things and our officers are more than willing to put in the overtime. So that'll be something that we also will be doing with our bike patrol officers that are already that would be on the bike. Normally, if we could have them more often so and the multi use path, especially if you. Implement this is obviously going to be the place where we're going to be more often our officers are already on the streets And in doing those pieces so we will dedicate what time we can as much as we can but park patrol is already down there so it does absolutely help to have them be a part of the solution to

So, Commissioner, I would just say, you know, we have regulations on the road, but we don't have police officers on every single block of the streets. You know, it's we obey the rules of the traffic aid to have a safe civil society and be because we know that at any point we could be pulled over. We know the existence of the rules and the existence of the enforcement. um and that's what we're seeing here i think additionally um you know the differentiation on the devices jumps quite a bit i mean like commissioner gottlieb said it's hard to distinguish even a class one from a class two and three now it's all kind of there but it's pretty easy to see an emoto um and they all end up somewhere you know they're not just driven perpetually they all end up at a house or at a park or something or at a hotel and officers are pretty smart and they know where people go

Without the ordinance we're gonna have to help up that enforcement as well.

Yeah, and like inherently like last year when more complaints became and It is going to be a learning process between not just our department other departments in the city and in the people Whether it's tourists or citizens here. There's gonna be that learning curve as we do so

We're all going to learn as we step into this process and we'll find out what works.

If we have to make changes, that's what we can also bring back to you guys when we have those results.

So a couple of follow-up questions for Captain. Correct me if I'm wrong, Park Patrol cannot issue citations though. They would have to wait for an actual police officer, right?

They can issue civil infractions, which is what this is. Yeah, exactly.

Next question, does the no pursuit policy apply for the multi-use path?

Yeah, we're not chasing anybody. I mean, if somebody doesn't stop, you know, whether it's an officer or Park Patrol, the nice piece with Park Patrol, a lot of the people that work for us in Park Patrol are people that are interested in law enforcement. So they're already in that frame of mind to, all right, what do I need to do? I need to take into, okay, what are they wearing? How long do they look? Those kind of pieces. What kind of bike are they riding? We do the best we can. But no, we're not going to be chasing somebody that's not safe in any manner.

They end up somewhere.

no they end up somewhere and we know a lot of what the children around here look like and like where the houses they end up will be or if they end up at a hotel we know where the hotels are and you can see them parked outside they're not bringing them inside um i think it was important to really address the fact that that that no pursuit policy we've addressed how we're going to be able to identify and and then catch up with those

Also, can I just clarify very briefly? When Sean says we know what the kids look like, he's not being creepy. He means we have usual suspects that we run into over and over and again, doing illegal things on e-bikes. That's all I wanted to say.

Thank you for that clarification. I meant we have them on camera, we know what the devices look like if we see them outside of a house, if we see them at another point. It also takes a lot to run from a police officer. I don't think we have that much of a breakdown in civil society yet.

Especially with some of the younger, our officers are in the schools and we are interacting with kids and of course you get to know kids are involved in or what they're doing. We talk to them all the time and our SRO is somebody that's on the road and he'll be one of the people that are also on the bikes for our department and he knows all the kids.

One more question for you, Captain. I'm just going to, there's a lot there that I could comment on, but it's not productive. Last question, will our police bike patrol be allowed to use the DDA sidewalks or streets then? Or does this rule apply to you guys as well?

Well, we wouldn't typically be on the sidewalk as a bike patrol. That's not something typically we do. Now, if they're responding to a call, like a call for service, you may see our bike or somebody there. Because even though they are on bike patrol, they are, unless they're totally dedicated, like an overtime or something, they would be handling complaints just like an officer would be in a car. So that would be the time when you may see them in that type of a thing. But typically, we're not on the sidewalk. We'll be on the multi-use path. But other than that, we're typically on the roadways.

Thank you.

Okay.

Yes. If you don't mind, Mayor, before continuing on with the motion that's open, there was some discussion about adding or amending some of that language to include sidewalks for reckless behavior. My recommendation on that one is going to be We're currently doing an overhaul and a review of that chapter with the police department and the city clerk's office. And I think at that time, making sure that we have the appropriate language to cover that and cover the concerns that you just mentioned, I think it would be wise to take that time to review that and come back with any amendment on that specific question or concern so that we can make sure we're getting it right and that we've considered all of those implications and making sure we've addressed that correctly. it's not necessarily allowing anything more than what's happening right now on those sidewalks. So that would be my recommendation to just keep the language as is right now, but fully expect any of those changes to be coming in the next couple of months.

One more question about just kind of following off of Commissioner Mayer and folks that are walking on the multi-use path. you know, in the language it says, you know, everybody like the bikers will be to the right or is that everybody is kind of following that, you know, not walking for not walking for breasts or otherwise. Is it all users or is that every person? So regardless of biking, scooter or everything. All right. Understood. Thank you. And that's great. Thank you.

Okay, great conversation. Thank you all. With that, I think it's time to ask the Deputy City Clerk to do a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Gottlieb?

Yes.

Commissioner Hanley? Yes. Commissioner Larson?

Yes.

Commissioner Mayer?

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Ottaway?

Yes.

And Mayor Schlegel?

Yes. Motion passes 6-0.

So i've got it on mine here that says comments from the commission but we are going to public comment again you you adopted the you adapted the you adapted this agenda which does for some reason have comments from the commissioners before comments from the king of the public okay well we're going to do it.

Commissioner Gottlieb, fire away.

Well, believe it or not, I can say just a little bit more. I'd like to sincerely thank the city administration for the time and energy spent on this. It's been incredible. Everybody sitting over on that side of the room, everyone has had something to do with this. I realize that there will be more work needed by engineering or city attorney and others, but I am especially grateful to want to call out the police who have been so instrumental in helping the task force refine the recommendations. The input from the user groups has been quite amazing, but the most amazing thing to me was the task force itself. It met weekly for two plus hours for three months without food as an enticement or alcohol or anything. These guys just showed up and it was amazing. And there's three of them sitting here. And what an amazing group. It was a pleasure to work with them and to learn from them. I'm just really amazed. So thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Hanley.

I also want to say thank you to the staff and the task force and everyone that put all the time and effort they did into finding our way forward. I will agree with Carrie that this is not perfect and there will be things that we will have to change and address as we go forward, but it is a stepping stone to protecting kids and adults alike on our bike paths, which I'm happy for. I would like to comment on something that was said earlier, which was talking about training. I would love to require children to take a class for this, but as of right now, there's nothing that leads us to having that availability, either with resources or with anywhere that does that at this point. I think it should be treated like we do a jet ski. You have to take a class and be tested before you can be on one of these. And I would love to see that in the future if the state finds a way forward with that, finding a way for us to also quickly enforce that. Until then, we have to rely on parents to teach their kids the right and wrong way to be on their e-bikes when they're out on the streets, and their regular bikes for that matter. But with that, I'm done.

Thank you. Pro Tem Ottaway.

Yeah, thank you to commissioner got leave the rest of the task force as well. The 1 thing I hope everyone realizes is this is the beginning of the conversation. It's not the end. It will continue. For as long as we have people in this town that like to move around and I look forward to seeing where this conversation goes. Another huge thank you to the staff involved as you can see. When we have an ordinance request or we have you know something that is this important touches a lot of hands and really a lot of them are sitting right here between just normal city administration our city attorney you know, obviously. police and fire involved in this park patrol a lot of things get touched in a lot of processes have to be kind of gone through before we can actually make this happen so I'm very thankful that this is is progressed and move in a way that it has it kind of shows just how how good an organization we have so thank you to everyone involved in stop talking.

Thank you commissioners.

Yeah, echoing everybody, thanks to everybody that's worked on this, the lot of hours that have gone into it. I think most people using the path don't really experience this as a debate over class one, two, or three, or whatever that definition of that device might be, but they really experience it. The experience is that question of whether somebody's going too fast, passing closely, failing to yield, not staying to the right. So I really like that the ordinance really has a focus on that reasonable and prudent speed, safe passing, yielding, keeping control, and prohibiting reckless activity. So I think that's where the strength of this ordinance really comes, is looking to address some of those issues that we have been hearing and enhancing that experience for folks on the bike path. So certainly thank you to everybody who's put work into this.

Thank you. Commissioner Mayer.

Thank you, Your Honor. Yeah, I do really want to acknowledge this. I mean, this is, even though it's effectively only two pages of verbiage that this ordinance is, the amount of staff time that went into creating this is kind of wild. I really appreciate just everybody, which again, pretty much everyone right here as well. You know, looking at this, obviously, I think I vocalized some of my concerns, but reading through this, a lot of the earlier conversations we had, I think, were absolutely addressed throughout this verbiage. And frankly, I can't propose anything alternative to this to address my concerns. So I think, you know, with the one minor tweak that I think Commissioner Ottaway mentioned is, i mean this this might be as good as we can get this but uh you know maybe there will be potential for in the future we realize there's some way to change it again but um i just kudos to staff for that um Also, got to give a shout out to the one wheel community because you guys have consistently been advocating, I think, ever since I joined this commission. And I'm just very happy you can ride your skateboard with a big wheel in the middle now. It only took class three bikes to get approved, but I'm very happy for you.

Thank you. Yeah, I can't really say it any better than the rest of you guys have. This is some pretty heavy lifting for this ordinance, and I'm pretty proud of the information that's come out of it, thanks to everybody that's contributed. I would offer this up to any other community that's looking to try and start up and to address these types of issues, because I think it's a really, really great first rendition of what we're up against. In the future, I know it's going to be readdressed, but this is something, going back to the accountability comments earlier, if we've got a bike rental business in town, why doesn't this person, why aren't they required to give a pamphlet of some sort or a quick write-up that says, here's what's up. If we have people that are buying and selling bikes in town, same thing. We got to be able to give them something so that they can be accountable for their actions. And I'm sure that the resource officer going into the schools, the lessons that are going to be taught and learned there are going to be really very beneficial. again, I always use the term living, breathing document. We're gonna be addressing it as it needs to be addressed. And I think that everybody that had their fingers into the mix here should be very proud of what they've come up with. With that being said, we will go to our second public comment. If you would like to say something at the podium, please do. It cannot last more than three minutes per person. If you haven't already done so, please state your name and address.

You know what Cody I thank you so much for mentioning pedestrian access I mean I think that kind of easily gets lost in the discussion around the multi-use path we forget about sidewalks And I'm really hopeful that you guys can keep that sidewalk thing and the enforcement so because obviously that is the only place for a certain population and We as we advocate for bikes. We have to remember that there are people that are walking and need to be safe Thank you

Excuse me.

I want to echo Barb's comments and say that, yeah, anyway, we can continue to keep pedestrians in mind and perhaps putting a, you know, pedestrian first even mindset as we expand. Yeah, I advocate for that.

Thank you.

Zach Youngs, I just wanted to say thank you. And we're always doing a wheelie, so it's not dangerous. Thank you.

Anyone else for public comment? Seeing none, we will go to comments from the city manager.

I just really want to say thank you for the collaborative effort that we saw here and the continuous work and consideration on trying to make this as feasible and as practical as possible. I'm incredibly proud of the team that has really put their your input into this and especially our city attorney who has you know been guiding a lot of of the considerations here um not you know not necessarily with um what specifically we we see but there's so many thoughts that have gone into this and the way that this has gone together so i appreciate everybody who's been a part of that Some of the ideas that we heard today that we didn't necessarily cover or talk about in the ordinance or didn't include in the ordinance, again, they don't go unheard. They are ones that we're gonna continue to modify the programs that we do have, modify and consider it in the ordinance and some of those policies as well. So I think when we talk about registration and licensing, and requirements for operating an e-bike, we do have to remember that we have visitors that come in that may not be able to look this up ahead of time or may fail to, but we don't want to necessarily type all of our resources chasing after something like that when we can wait and really not wait, but advocate to the state to make some, maybe some perhaps bigger changes that would be statewide instead of just at our municipality so i think this is a great start as it was mentioned by commissioner that this is just the beginning there's still quite a bit of work to do including some of those signs some of those the paint on the multi-use path and and so on so i i still welcome all the comments and ideas because again we're constantly refining this so thank you

With that, we are adjourned at 621.