City of Madison
Legislative File ID   04272
Type:   Ordinance    Status:   Passed
Enactment Date:   4/26/2008    Enactment No.:   ORD-08-00045
Title:  
THIRD SUBSTITUTE - Creating Section 12.792 entitled "Neighborhood Electric Vehicles Allowed" to permit and regulate the operation of such vehicles on Madison streets and amending Section 1.08(3)(a) of the Madison General Ordinances to establish a bail deposit amount for violations of the section.
Controlling Body:   PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEE
Introduced:   4/17/2007    Version:   4
Final Action:   4/8/2008    Contact:   Diane Althaus
Name:  
neighborhood electric vehicles
Extra Date 1:  
Requester:   PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW BOARD
Sponsors:  
Mark Clear, Brian L. Solomon, Julia S. Kerr, Paul E. Skidmore, Judy Compton, Eli Judge, Larry Palm, Satya V. Rhodes-Conway, Michael Schumacher
Legislative History
DateActing BodyAction TakenMotion
8/1/2006Attorney's Office/Approval GroupApproved As To Form
8/1/2006Attorney's OfficeFiscal Note Required / Approval to the Comptroller's Office/Approval Group Completed on 4/30/2007
8/1/2006COMMON COUNCILRefer to the PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEE Completed on 6/12/2007
Notes: Additional Referral(s): Pedestrian-Motor-Vehicle Commission, Municipal Judge
8/1/2006PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEERefer to the PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION Completed on 3/21/2007
8/2/2006Comptroller's Office/Approval GroupFiscal Note Pending to the Attorney's Office Completed on 8/2/2006
Notes: Bohrod
8/2/2006Attorney's OfficeReferred for Introduction
Notes: Public Safety Review Board; Pedestrian/Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Commission/Municipal Judge (for review of bail deposit amounts)
8/3/2006PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEEFiscal Note Required / Approval to the Comptroller's Office/Approval Group Completed on 4/30/2007
Notes: fiscal note should be approved on substitute & returned to PSRB
9/26/2006PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSIONA motion was made by Conroy, seconded by Webber, to Refer to the PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION Arthur Ross stated that staff's recommendation is to refer to a future meeting. The resolution is not fully developed yet. The motion passed by acclamation.Pass
2/26/2007Attorney's Office/Approval GroupApproved As To Form
Notes: Substitute.
3/21/2007PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSIONA motion was made by Skidmore, seconded by De Vos, to Return to Lead with the Following Recommendation(s) to the PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW BOARD The PBMVC recommended approval of the Substitute Ordinance with the comments and recommendations contained in the 3/21/07 memo from Arthur Ross, Pedestrian-Bicycle Coordinator. (The memo is attached to the legislative file.) PBMVC members emphasized the need for additional Traffic Engineering staff resources to implement and maintain the Neighborhood Electric Vehicle program and wanted to ensure that the licensing fee covers the cost of the program. Since these costs have not yet been determined, it was suggested that the Substitute be referred to the Board of Estimates once the fiscal note has been added. DISCUSSION Ross provided written comments and suggested changes. · The fiscal note is not done yet. Traffic Engineering is trying to get an idea of the amount of additional staff time required to implement and maintain the program. A budget amendment will be necessary to fund the increased staff time. If the Common Council does not support a budget amendment, it means Traffic Engineering staff will have less time for the bike registration program. · While there is no timeline for the ordinance, the UW would like to see the ordinance go through soon; it has purchased some NEVs and will be purchasing more. · The ordinance does not take effect until 180 days after the Common Council passes it. Thus, the earliest it could be implemented would be October 2007. · PBMVC expressed concern that the NEV registration fee covers the cost of the program. Ross did not have an estimate of the potential number of users. He did not envision there would be a lot of users. · A NEV must meet federal safety standards. · Ross indicated the term “immediately” in Section (7)(d) is modeled on bike registration language and has a liberal interpretation. · Re: section (7)(h), Ross stated Traffic Engineering staff will not do inspections; a determination of mechanical condition will be based on the submitted paperwork. The motion passed by acclamation.Pass
4/30/2007Comptroller's Office/Approval GroupApproved Fiscal Note By The Comptroller's Office (SUBSTITUTES) to the PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEE Completed on 4/30/2007
Notes: Bohrod
6/12/2007PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEEA motion was made by Judge, seconded by Skidmore, to RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS - REPORT OF OFFICER Captain McLay of the Police Department explained that these vehicles are basically golf carts which have been beefed up with seat belts, lights etc. to meet minimal requirements for street use. After driving one on Johnson Street, he found/felt them to leave one very vulnerable since they are highly fragile. State Statute regulations on authorization of their use is vague. Their top speed is about 22-23 mph, and were designed for use within residential neighborhoods. Police have worked out a compromise to allow on roads up to 30 mph with NEV routes designated (where the speed limit exceeds this but a needed arterial road to get from one area to another). The price range of these is from about $10,000 to the cost for a small economy car (depending on how "deluxe" the electric vehicle is). Police do not anticipate a great number of these but those who have them (UW) or want to buy one, want to be able to legally use them on Madison streets. Ecologically they are great but feel they would be used in lieu of a bike or moped and not in lieu of a car. Police support is ambivalent due to safety concerns. Smith asked if we should do it (legalize) just because we can when the safety issues and probable angry car drivers who get stuck behind one, are so great. A motion was made and seconded to approve to allow for discussion. Adding a sunset clause was suggested but not decided on. Scott made a friendly amendment to the original movement that these vehicles be kept on streets of 25 mph period, and this was accepted as part of the PSRB recommendation. The ordinance had earlier been reviewed and approved by the PBMVC. The motion passed by the following vote:Pass
(4:2)
Notes: Allow these vehicles on 25mph streets only.
6/19/2007COMMON COUNCILRerefer to the PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEE Completed on 7/10/2007
Notes: Additional Referral(s): Pedestrian/Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Commission 1 Registrant(s) in support wishing to speak.
6/19/2007PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEERefer to the PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION Completed on 3/25/2008
7/3/2007Attorney's Office/Approval GroupApproved As To Form
7/3/2007Attorney's OfficeFiscal Note Required / Approval to the Comptroller's Office/Approval Group due on 7/3/2007. Completed on 7/3/2007
Notes: 2nd Substitute.
7/3/2007Comptroller's Office/Approval GroupApproved Fiscal Note By The Comptroller's Office (SUBSTITUTES) to the PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEE Completed on 7/3/2007
Notes: Simon
7/10/2007PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEEMark Clear, alder from the 19th district spoke suggesting referral until staff suggestions can be worked out. Spoke of Arthur Ross who was not available for this meeting. Said the street list was a problem and that there were parts of the city you could not get to without 35 MPH NEV routes. Amy Smith raised her concerns about user conflicts, with different capacities for speed. Moped analogy not a good one as they are faster, easier to get around, more maneuverable. While police staff agrees with Amy, traffic engineering does not, so what if it slows traffic down. Eli raised the issue of seat belts making them safer. Mike Scott said mopeds are not a good idea either. Said the city need to redesign to accommodate slow moving vehicles. Amy & Paul both addressed the issue of silence for electric vehicles, no warning properties. Suggestion to look at municipalities that allow these vehicles and see what the problems are (see listing in public comment section). Mike suggested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, should have a report on this. Alder Judy Compton how far a vehicle would go on one charge? Will it die in traffic? Tim Johnson said they go 30 miles all the time, 40 mile on a good day. They have an indicator like a gas gage that tells you the state of charge, a red light goes on when you only have 1 more mile left. Said Wall Mart allows people to recharge vehicles. Paul moved referral and Eli seconded. Paul wanted to know if UW would have placed to plug in so you can get home. Amy addressed the carbon footprint. While you reduce emissions at site of operation, what is the relationship to the total carbon footprint? Motion to refer was passed unanimously.Pass
7/24/2007PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION Sponsor of the proposal, Alder Mark Clear (19th AD), spoke before the group. He had asked this item be referred back when it came up at the Council because a number of good changes suggested by PBMVC and PSRB had not been included in the draft of the ordinance. He thought that proposed ordinance was unnecessarily complex, and he distributed information from Green Bay, LaCrosse and Sun Prairie regarding their ordinances and sample registration form used in LaCrosse. Clear said that these items provided examples of ordinances that were simple, mirrored state law, and treated electric vehicles much like bicycles. He said that there was movement at state level to have State DOT handle registration of these vehicles but that this didn't need to stop Madison from proceeding with its ordinance, which could be sunseted if the state took over the process. He hoped enactment and implementation would be a simple and timely process. His next step would be to redraft the proposal and send it back to the Commission for another look. Arthur Ross of Traffic Engineering said that staff wanted to recommend referral of the item. In light of certain changes that had been made to the draft, involved alders and staff needed to meet to work out some issues and develop a proposal that folks agreed on (re: registration and streets of operation), which could then be brought back to PBMVC and PSRB. Compton/Skidmore moved to refer the item. Compton was happy that the proposal would mirror state law and wanted electric vehicles to be treated more like cars than like bicycles or golf carts. She had safety concerns about the vehicles if they were to stop suddenly in traffic. She also wanted them to be licensed to operate. Shahan supported referral and wondered what happened to the changes that PBMVC had recommended to the draft. He hoped that the state would take over registration (so that each municipality would not have to set up their own agencies for this). Pass
8/14/2007PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEEItem referred to future meeting. Alders Clear, Judge and Skidmore want time to work out revisions.Pass
9/17/2007PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEEStaff wondered how big the map was mentioned in the proposed ordinance. A/C Davenport said police will probably ask to have that provision deleted. Arthur Ross of Traffic Engineering shared information that State Statute allows the use on streets up to 35mph even though the vehicles only reach a 25mph level. The problem is that if ordinance limits speed to 25mph, users wouldn't be able to reach these streets so there would not be full city access to streets. Are looking to give maps when persons register, however if register with State and not just City, this would become more complicated. Staff asked if 3-prong outlets would be available throughout the city so vehicles could plug in and recharge. This is the individual property owner's decision but more are doing it. These vehicles are basically for short distances. The concern of some members is the incompatibility of mixing motorized vehicles with electric vehicles. Additionally, these vehicles do not make noise like scooters so that is an additional safety problem. Could a UW staff person (where these are and/or would have a more concentrated use) come to a future meeting to address some of these concerns/questions? Pass
10/11/2007PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEEAlder Clear has not had time to do the amendment yet so will address this at November meeting.Pass
11/19/2007PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEEA motion was made by Judge, seconded by Lichtenheld, to Refer to the PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW BOARD, due back on 12/11/2007. The motion passed by voice vote/other.Pass
Notes:
1/8/2008PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEEA motion was made by Judge, seconded by Skidmore, to Rerefer to the PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW BOARD, due back on 2/12/2008. The motion passed by voice vote/other.Pass
Notes:
2/12/2008Unpublished Meeting Data Pending*
2/27/2008PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSIONApproved Fiscal Note By The Comptroller's Office (SUBSTITUTES) to the PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEE Completed on 7/3/2007
Notes:
3/11/2008PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEEA motion was made by Scott, seconded by Judge, to RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS - REPORT OF OFFICER. The motion passed the following vote: 5 ayes, 1 no, 1 excused. Skidmore asked if Police felt these vehicles were unsafe - the culture of driving now is that he often has to dodge traffic when driving the maximum legal speed. Asst. Chief Davenport replied that they were concerned about the speed and the significant public information is needed. Some users will self-select which streets to use but others will use all available because the ordinance says they can. Who and how will the education be done? What about an option to have headlights on at all times of operation (like motorcycles)? Police do have safety concerns - the community needs to be educated before these vehicles go out on the city streets. Bell commented that the Board is charged with "public safety" - will there be chaos on the streets if these vehicle hit the streets? Davenport replied that he couldn't give that assurance for any vehicle used on city streets - it is dependent on operators: skills, patience, how interact and sensibility. Scott said he had been looking for a green light from poilce before voting for the measure but would now vote for it unless they gave a red light. Smith felt that the burden of safety was still the issue and their charge is public safety. Didn't feel there was significant information to show these are safe. Police could give no official support one way or the other nor a recommendation as to their safety. Chief Wray stated that if asked for an official position, they would take another look at this internally. Scott proposed having it built in to the ordinance that headlights be on at all times of operation. Arthur Ross explained that since these are now to be regulated by the State (and they don't have that regulation) instead of the City, it could be difficult for users to know this if coming from an adjoining community. He stated that the city ordinance was crafted as close to the state statute as possible. Skidmore added that they are something we would have to integrate and accept the problems with just as we have with other vehicles. Scott said that Milwaukee required the use of headlights on these vehicles at all times of operation and asked to have the city ordinance amended to include that requirement. With this proposed amendment as part of the ordinance, a vote was then taken. Fail
(3:3)
Notes:
3/25/2008PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSIONA motion was made by Compton, seconded by Strawser III, to Return to Lead with the Recommendation for Approval to the PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW BOARD. Ross provided some background information. State statutes permit municipalities to allow neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) on local streets with a maximum posted speed limit of 35 mph. It’s up to the local municipalities whether they wish to allow NEVs. The UW-Madison already uses NEVs on campus. Ross noted that the Third Substitute before the PBMVC incorporates changes to reflect 2007 Wisconsin Act 33, which provides that WisDOT will register and license the NEVs, not the local municipalities. Ald. Mark Clear, main sponsor of the ordinance, registered to speak. He commented that the ordinance is very simple and allows NEVs on streets with a posted speed limit of 35 mph or less. The ordinance is similar ones adopted in Janesville, LaCrosse, Green Bay, Stoughton and Milwaukee. Compton expressed interest in being added as a sponsor. She wondered whether Clear would be willing to accept an amendment that NEVs must be able to reach a certain speed in order to be allowed on a 35 mph street. Ross noted that NEVs are legally restricted to a maximum speed of 25 mph. Compton expressed concern that some NEVs may not have enough power to reach 25 mph. She did not want to see accidents occur because motorists are trying to get around a NEV. For instance, if a NEV can only go 10 mph will it still be allowed on City streets? Compton wondered whether the ordinance should be amended to include a requirement that the NEV be able to achieve/maintain a speed of “x” miles per hour in order to be operated on the street. Strawser wanted to know how the state statute defines a NEV. Ald. Clear indicated that the ordinance references the state statute. A NEV is smaller than the typical passenger car and usually looks similar to a motorized golf cart but has safety equipment like a car such as a windshield, headlights, seat belts, turn signals, etc. Federal law requires that they have a maximum speed of 25 mph. Clear did not think there was a problem with NEVs being unable to attain a speed of 25 mph but indicated some of the registrants might be better able to address this issue. Jim Bogan, representing the UW-Madison Fleet, distributed photos of several NEVs used on campus. The UW uses an orange triangle on the back of each NEV to indicate a slow-moving vehicle. The UW uses the vehicles for various purposes, including patrolling grounds, shuttling between buildings, transporting relief workers to the parking ramps, etc. He indicated the vehicles work well for getting from one side of campus to another. Compton indicated support for NEVs but felt she was hearing that they are utilized like golf carts in a resort. She wanted to know if there’s a problem with maintaining speed when the vehicle starts to lose power. Bogan replied that it depends on the terrain, vehicle load and weather. He stated that the ones purchased by the UW have a fairly high carrying capacity. The governing factor is the motor must spin fast enough to turn the wheels. He estimated that a NEV going up a steep hill would probably travel only 16 mph. Bogan felt the vehicles have great visibility, more so than a bicycle or moped. Lucy Zweep and Juan Olveda, representing Ozee Cars, 516 E. Main Street, Stoughton, registered in support. · Their company sells NEVs. · The vehicles are designed for neighborhood use. They are safe and don’t have emissions. · The vehicles are limited to 25 mph. Customers are urged to maintain the battery and keep it charged. With a full charge, a NEV should get between 30-70 miles per charge. The outside temperature should not have an impact on the battery. · Shopping malls in some cities have charging stations for electric vehicles. · NEVs are the wave of the future. Compton commented that although the emphasis is on using the vehicles in neighborhoods, the ordinance talks about streets with a 35 mph limit, which means an arterial street. In communities where NEVs are already being used, how many times are they restricted from going on arterial streets? Zweep stated there have been no problems in Stoughton, even with 35 mph streets. In response to Conroy’s question, Zweep advised that most NEVs cost between $8,000-$9,000 for a custom-built vehicle. She added that NEVs are very quiet when operated and do have a back-up beeper. Matt Schaefer, 621 Vernon Avenue, Madison, registered in support. · He has test-driven a NEV and will purchase one if the ordinance passes. · He envisioned using a NEV to commute to work and for trips close to home. He wants to use a NEV to reduce the number of trips made by a gas-powered vehicle. · He indicated that Federal standards specify that the vehicle must be capable of reaching a speed of at least 20 mph within a mile; if a vehicle can’t do that, it would not be classified as a NEV. If a vehicle is going less than 20 mph, perhaps the driver could be cited for impeding traffic. Something like that might address Compton’s concerns. · He noted that other vehicles such as bicycles that don’t go 20 mph. Dane County Supervisor Kyle Richmond, 929 O’Sheridan Street, Madison, submitted a registration slip in support and urged that the ordinance be passed soon. Motion by Compton/Strawser to recommend approval. Strawser felt the ordinance should be consistent with the state statute in allowing NEVs on streets up to 35 mph. This would allow the NEVs access to the whole city since a driver would often need to cross a 35 mph street to reach a lower speed street. Compton clarified that her concern is about a loss of power. The human factor re: vehicle maintenance comes into play. Many motorists speed or drive recklessly to get past slow moving vehicles. She would like to see a minimum standard for speed. She did not have a problem with a NEV going 25 mph on a 25 mph street, but she was concerned about NEVs going slower than 25 mph. On narrow streets, a slow moving vehicle could cause safety problems. Crandall agreed with Strawser that the ordinance should reflect the state statute. People who purchase a NEV will learn which streets to travel on. He did have a concern that if a NEV is consistently being passed, the driver will move too far to the right and infringe on the bike lane. Skidmore stated he wanted to be added as a sponsor. He requested a roll call vote on the motion. Pass
(8:0)
Notes:
4/8/2008COMMON COUNCILA motion was made by Ald. Clear, seconded by Ald. Verveer, to Adopt. The motion passed by voice vote/other.Pass
Notes:
Approvals
ApproverDateApproval Status
Daniel Bohrod1/31/2008Approved
Michael May1/31/2008Approved

  powered by Daystar Computer Systems, Inc.