"Laughable" was one critique.
The proposal, backed by Mayor Yemi Mobolade, was first presented last week as the next step in the city's controversial, yearslong effort to address the increasingly popular technology. The draft ordinance previously went before the city's Trails, Open Space and Parks (TOPS) working committee, which oversees the sales tax fund dedicated to some of the city's premier places for recreation: With new code language defining Class 1 e-bikes as a "nonmotorized use," they would be allowed in those places.
As defined by the federal and state government years ago, Class 1 e-bikes are equipped with motors providing boosts up to 20 mph as long as the rider is pedaling. Opponents see the bikes as infringing on the 1997 voter-approved TOPS ordinance that bans motorized vehicles on TOPS-funded properties, including Red Rock Canyon, Stratton and Blodgett open spaces, as well as Ute Valley Park.
"It is really a laughable proposal to circumvent what is, by definition, actually a motorized vehicle," Jim Lockhart, conservation chair of the local Sierra Club chapter, said at Thursday's parks board meeting.
Others described the proposed policy as “legal fiction.”
The draft ordinance deems Class 1 and 2 e-bikes as "nonmotorized use." Class 2 e-bikes, to be allowed on urban paths but not across parks and open spaces under the proposal, provide motor boosts up to 20 mph regardless of pedaling.
"A nonmotorized use shall not be deemed use of a motorized vehicle," the draft ordinance continues. It adds that Class 3 e-bikes would be considered "a motorized use." Class 3 motors are activated up to 28 mph regardless of pedaling.
"How is one motorized use and one is not?" asked parks board member Steve Lenzo . "I think for us to present that to the public is wrong."
Said Scott Abbott, regional parks, trails and open space manager: "It's our suggestion that the speed capability shouldn't be in our system. It's just too much."
A Parks Department survey, reportedly garnering 3,804 responses, showed about 60% support for the proposed e-bike access. Critics have called that survey "unscientific" — "an interested parties survey," Kent Obee said.
The longtime local parks advocate has called for e-bike access to be decided by voters, as he and other opponents see the access representing a change to the voter-approved TOPS ordinance regarding nonmotorized vehicles. After calling off what was to be a yearlong study of e-bikes on trails in 2021, parks officials went on to say a ballot initiative would, indeed, be necessary.
But the proposed ordinance rather defines previously undefined nonmotorized use, explained a representative from the City Attorney's Office.
"When a voter-initiated ordinance is passed, when there are ambiguities, we are permitted as a city to provide additional structure," lawyer Caitlin Moldenhauer said at the Parks Board meeting. "This is a permissible path that we can go forward with."
Some board members wondered if it was a path to lawsuit. One of them, Greg Thornton , saw the move "overstepping" the TOPS ordinance.
"We're gonna bypass what generally is decided by the public? I don't like setting that kind of precedent," he said. "But I know e-bikes are coming, they're here, and they're coming in droves."
Mobolade mentioned their presence in a previous statement to The Gazette. "We know e-bikes are already being used on city trails, and we need a policy to manage this use," the mayor said.
E-bikes were a matter of inclusion, he suggested: "As our city grows and matures, we must ensure we’re creating accessible ways for residents to experience our great outdoors. Our proposed e-bike policy aligns with our city’s vision to create a more welcoming place and addresses key objectives in our strategic plan that call for increased accessibility and recreation spaces for all to enjoy."
Colorado Springs Mountain Bike Association Executive Director Keith Thompson agrees. He has pointed to the "success" of expanded e-bike access established years ago by the likes of Douglas , Jefferson and Boulder counties.
Thompson and other proponents see the local angst around e-bikes as a misunderstanding of what matters on the trail: the rider, not the bike.
"We need to be honest with what e-bikes are, which is bicycles," Thompson said at Thursday's board meeting.
City Councilman David Leinweber spoke to what he called a "key piece" missing from the debate. "The motor doesn't turn the wheel," he said. "The motor helps me pedal."
In older age, he said, it helps him reach distant places for solitude. "I can't tell you how much it has changed my life in terms of giving me access that I thought was gone."
Ron Ramsey is another local rider who has pushed for more e-bike access in his retirement years. He worried about a citywide vote.
"The problem with that is, we have so much of the public who is misinformed, ill-informed, and many of them have their own hostile feelings toward bicycles if they don't ride," he said.
This could be helped by more public outreach about e-bikes, Cory Sutela maintains. While supporting some level of expanded access, the Medicine Wheel Trail Advocates executive director has called for more education and data collection — the kind of open houses and on-the-ground studies that preceded land management decisions elsewhere on the Front Range.
With the TOPS ordinance, Sutela has also supported a vote of the people. He worried disagreements would "kick the can down the road," as has been a common phrase in the local e-bike conversation.
"It's a shame that city leadership has chosen a path that could likely lead to that," Sutela said.
The proposed policy could move to votes by the TOPS working committee and Parks Board next month, ahead of possible consideration by City Council.
© 2024 The Gazette (Colorado Springs, Colo.). Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
