This was after a separate committee overseeing the city's parks and open spaces rejected the proposal ahead of final City Council consideration. The prior rejection by the TOPS Working Committee took issue with an update to city code that would define Class 1 and 2 e-bikes, powered by an electric motor, as "non-motorized use."
Members of that committee struggled to square the suggested definition with the 1997 voter-approved TOPS ordinance, which cleared the way for sales tax portions to fund and acquire lands such as Red Rock Canyon, Stratton and Blodgett open spaces, as well as Ute Valley Park and trails around Pulpit Rock. The ordinance prohibits motorized use on those properties, advocates have argued.
On Thursday, parks board members similarly struggled with the proposed definitions of e-bikes.
A policy expanding electric bike access on Colorado Springs trails fell short of its first vote of endorsement Wednesday, with a board committed to city open spaces opting instead to amend the proposed ordinance that aimed to classify the motor-assisted bikes as "non-motorized use."
Class 1 e-bikes (with motors providing boosts up to 20 mph only when the rider is pedaling) and Class 2 e-bikes (pedal-assist or throttle-activated motors up to 20 mph) would be considered "non-motorized use" under the policy. Class 1 e-bikes would be allowed on all trails where other bikes are allowed, and Class 2 e-bikes would be limited to urban, commuter paths.
Class 3 e-bikes, meanwhile, would be considered "motorized use." Those are equipped with pedal-assist motors activated up to 28 mph — a mere software difference compared with "non-motorized" Class 1 and 2 e-bikes, noted one parks board member, Steve Lenzo.
The distinction is in line with state definitions of the three classes, parks officials have said. But "to say one is motorized and one is not, to make that a legal definition and to tell that to the public," Lenzo said. "To me it diminishes our ability as a government to communicate honestly with the public."
The board voted 4-3 for code language defining all three classes as "non-motorized use."
"It's not going to be perfect, and we're certainly not going to get a consensus," said board member Larry Bogue.
He referred to several Front Range municipalities establishing e-bike access years ago, while riders have increased on Colorado Springs trails despite rules against them. "I think it's time to move forward and come up with a policy that we can move forward with, and provide that to City Council," Bogue said.
Council could hear the proposal next month.
"It'll matter to them that TOPS (Working Committee) said no, but it'll also matter to them that parks advisory took this broader view recognizing (e-bikes) are already out there and we need a direction," said Susan Davies , who has advocated for the policy as executive director of Trails and Open Space Coalition.
"But it was a split decision. And you heard very strongly there are people thinking it should go to a vote of the people."
Crews recently concluded another season of work on a new trail to the top of Pikes Peak.
Parks officials previously said expanded e-bike access would depend on voters changing the TOPS ordinance through a ballot question.
But last month, alongside city attorneys, those officials presented an ordinance change applying to the entire parks department, TOPS properties and beyond. The presentation included mention of the approach preferred by Mayor Yemi Mobolade, who in a statement to The Gazette emphasized the importance of a policy to manage e-bikes already on trails — and the importance of inclusion.
Inclusion was one message of dozens who packed the meeting room Thursday. Another message: false perceptions of conflicts on trails.
It's about rider behavior, not the bikes, proponents said. Said Kent Drummond: "Every time we see something written about e-bikes, there's this big emphasis on 20 mph or 28 mph. Nobody seems concerned about a car that can go 100 mph or 200 mph."
Others shared stories of aging, of injuries and disabilities, and of e-bikes extending their cycling lives. They spoke of e-bikes returning them to group rides with friends and family. Of e-bikes granting them exercise and fresh air they would not have otherwise.
Tom Lachocki, representing El Paso County's parks board, told the city's parks board: "The decision you're making today is really pretty simple. You're either going to encourage physical activity, or you're going to discourage physical activity."
Medicine Wheel Trail Advocates Executive Director Cory Sutela disagreed.
"It's a vote of the process and the proper way for us to expand e-bike access," he said.
While supporting more access, the leader of the local mountain bike advocacy group has criticized the process. He was not alone at Thursday's meeting.
Dan Downs represented Friends of Red Rock Canyon, which has no position on e-bikes. "But we do strongly advocate for a vote of the people for any material change to the TOPS ordinance," he said. Speaking personally, he accused the city of "legalistic sleight of hand to go around the (TOPS) ordinance."
Guided by the City Attorney's Office, the proposed change to city code "may be a permissible way, but it is not the best way," said another longtime parks advocate, Carol Beckman.
With City Council's approval, e-bikes would not immediately be allowed on TOPS properties, parks department leadership has emphasized. That's due to conservation easements banning motorized use across several major parks and open spaces.
The easements are held by Palmer Land Conservancy.
"We are responsible for interpreting the terms of the conservation easement," read a statement provided to the parks board, "which includes restrictions on motorized use that are completely independent from city code."
The statement concluded: "It has been frustrating to be excluded from the process."
It remains a process to work through, said Parks Director Britt Haley. She envisioned a "phased" approach, starting with e-bikes on urban trails and terrain free of conservation easements and deed restrictions, such as Palmer Park.
The phased approach sounded right to parks board chair Sarah Bryarly .
It would be "a great period of time" for education and staff observation, she said. "To look at e-bikes and see how everybody works together. ... We can kind of hone that in before we get to our TOPS properties."
©2024 The Gazette, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
