Quality of Life Meeting Deliberation Agenda for September 21, 2026

After a thoughtful discussion on August 17th with the public regarding the permit fee schedule changes as well as a draft e-biking law, the Quality of Life Committee has created, with the assistance of Councilman Rice, questions for our deliberations at the next meeting on Monday, September 21st at 5pm in City Hall.

Each section heading has a list of potential options to help facilitate recommendations for updating the proposed fee schedule resolution and an e-biking law. Please refer to the parking fee schedule proposed resolution and the draft e-biking law.

Parking Permit Fee Schedule

• Accessible Parking

  • Add a sentence confirming that existing accessible spaces at each affected facility are excluded from the permit allocation and remain available under existing rules.

  • Same as above, referencing the Department of Public Works physical inventory (rather than the codified schedule, which DPW has identified as outdated) as the basis for identifying protected spaces.

  • Same as above, requiring that restriping or signage work under Section 4 maintain or update accessible space compliance as part of that work.

• Customer and Short-Term Parking

  • No change. The daily rate at Warren Street remains the mechanism for customer access.

  • Extend the daily permit rate to the Exchange and Ridge Street lots, matching the Warren Street structure, without reserving any spaces.

  • Reserve a small, defined number of non-permit spaces at each lot for short-term public and customer use, with counts set after input from the businesses at each lot.

  • Permit only the perimeter spaces at each lot, leaving interior spaces open to the public.

• Single-Lot Restriction

  • No change; adopt the single-lot restriction as drafted.

  • Retain permit validity across all three municipal lots, consistent with how existing permits function today.

  • Adopt a single universal city permit valid at any lot or the garage, with permit caps set per facility based on verified capacity.

• Vehicle Registration and Verification

  • No change to Section 1; leave verification method to administrative practice.

  • Specify that permits are issued as a physical, non-reproducible pass, or decal for each of the two registered vehicles on the account, optionally color-coded by permit type.

  • Same as above, directing that the one-vehicle-at-a-time rule be verified by license plate rather than visual tag inspection.

• Enforcement

  • No change; enforcement approach remains at staff discretion.

  • Direct staff to report on current enforcement staffing and hours before the effective date, confirming the Night and Weekend and 24-Hour tiers are enforceable as sold.

  • Add a stated grace period (i.e. 15 minutes) at the 6:00pm and 8:00am permit-tier transitions.

  • Direct staff to evaluate the vendor-offered license plate recognition software, available at no additional cost under the current contract, for permit verification in the three lots.

• Pricing

  • No change to the fee amounts.

  • Phase the increase to the proposed rates over two to three years rather than a single adjustment.

  • Set the 24-Hour tier at a higher rate relative to the Workday and Nights and Weekends tiers, reflecting that it removes a space from turnover entirely.

• Data and Process, Prior to Adoption

  • Proceed to a vote without further data collection

  • Request a verified space count (total and accessible) for each affected facility from the Department of Public Works before the resolution returns for a vote.

  • Request staff follow-up with the Park Street garage stakeholders and 333 Glen Street ownership regarding current utilization and plans to open unused capacity.

  • Request on-street and, if available, lot-based occupancy data from the city’s parking sensor vendor.

E-Biking Local Law Proposal

• Threshold: is a local law needed at all?

  • Where it stands: The City Attorney asked the Committee to determine whether a local law is desirable, given that state law already addresses most of what the draft contains. Most operative provisions of the draft restate rules already in force. Public comment favored enforcing existing law over adopting new law. This question orders every item below.

    • No local law. Recommend that the Board of Public Safety’s proposal not advance. Direct enforcement of existing state law instead.

    • Narrow local law. Adopt only provisions that add something state law does not already provide.

    • Full local law. Advance a revised version of the draft chapter covering the range of matters below.

    • Resolution only. Adopt a resolution endorsing and directing enforcement of state law, without amending the code.

• Helmet requirements

  • Where it stands: Section 207-4 of the draft would require a helmet for every e-bike rider. This is the only substantive new restriction in the draft and is authorized by VTL 1242(3)(a). State law requires helmets only for Class 3 operators, who may not lawfully ride here, so no requirement currently applies to Class 1 or Class 2 riders at any age. Note that the City may not impose a helmet requirement on conventional bicycles, so the resulting difference between a 20-mph e bike and an unlimited-speed conventional bicycle cannot be cured by extending the rule.

    • Adopt as drafted. Require a helmet for all e-bike riders at any age.

    • Adopt for minors only. Require a helmet for riders 16 and 17, matching the State rule for electric scooters.

    • Adopt with waiver. Require a helmet, but waive the fine on proof of helmet purchase, following VTL 1238(6)(b).

    • Do not adopt. Rely on education and voluntary use.

• Rental and bike share carve-out

  • Where it stands: Raised in public comment and in the City Attorney's memorandum. A universal helmet requirement would oblige rental users to carry a helmet. Counsel advises an exemption is possibly available, and that enforcement and commercial interference would need discussion. Whether any rental fleet operating in the city is electric assist should be confirmed. Applies only if a helmet requirement is adopted.

    • Exempt rentals. Helmet requirement does not apply to riders of a permitted rental or share fleet.

    • Vendor supplies. Require the operator of any rental fleet to make helmets available.

    • No carve-out. Apply the requirement uniformly.

    • Dormant provision. Include a carve-out that takes effect only if an electric rental fleet begins operating in the city.

• Penalty schedule

  • Where it stands: Section 207-6 sets $150 for a first offense and $300 thereafter, against a State civil fine capped at $50 and the City's default of $30 under Chapter 208, Article VII. Counsel advises the amounts are lawful because they attach to violations of local law. Every resident who spoke on August 17 objected to the amounts, noting that many riders use e-bikes as primary transportation.

    • Match the State. Set the penalty at $50, consistent with VTL 1242(12).

    • Graduated. Warning for a first offense, then a fine for subsequent offenses.

    • Waiver structure. Fine waived on proof of compliance, following VTL 1238(6)(b) and 1242(11)(b).

    • Retain as drafted. $150 and $300.

• Sidewalk operation

  • Where it stands: VTL 1242(5)(a) already prohibits e-bikes on sidewalks unless the city authorizes them. The Committee is therefore deciding whether to grant a permission the State withholds, not whether to impose a ban. Note that the Queensbury and Lake George laws, which the referral was described as matching, permit sidewalk riding. Bolton Landing adopted a similar law but excluded sidewalks. Conventional bicycles are already permitted on City sidewalks.

    • Keep the prohibition. Take no action. The State prohibition remains in force.

    • Permit citywide. Authorize e-bike operation on sidewalks, matching Queensbury and Lake George.

    • Permit with exceptions. Authorize generally but exclude a defined downtown corridor.

    • Permit with conditions. Authorize subject to the conduct rule recommendations.

• Warren County Bikeway

  • Where it stands: Counsel has confirmed that State law does not currently authorize e-bikes on the Bikeway and that affirmative legislation would be required to allow them. Taking no action preserves the prohibition. Queensbury and Lake George permit Class 1 and Class 2 on their segments, and public comment identified the inconsistency as a source of confusion and non-compliance. Whether the City or Warren County holds jurisdiction over the Glens Falls segment is pending with counsel.

    • Keep the prohibition. Take no action.

    • Permit Class 1 and 2. Designate the segment, matching Queensbury and Lake George.

    • Permit Class 1 only. Designate for pedal assist only, excluding throttle-operated Class 2

    • Permit with conditions. Designate subject to a speed limit, seasonal limits, or hours of operation under VTL 1242(4)(b).

• Passing distance and vulnerable road users

  • Where it stands: The Board's resolution included a three-foot passing requirement for drivers overtaking a bicyclist or e bike rider. No such provision appears in the draft local law. VTL 1122(a) requires only a safe distance, with no numeric standard, so this is the one item in the referral with clear independent legal effect. Public comment supported broadening it beyond cyclists.

    • Restore as drafted. Three feet when passing a bicyclist or e-bike rider.

    • Broaden. Three feet when passing any vulnerable road user, on the model of Albany County 288-28 and 288-29

    • Do not include. Rely on VTL 1122(a).

• Streets permission and minimum age

  • Where it stands: Both settled, recorded here for completeness. Section 207-3 would permit Class 1 and Class 2 operation on City streets, which VTL 1242(8) already allows because no City street is posted above 30 mph. Minimum age is set at 16 by VTL 1242(2) and no change has been proposed.

    • Retain for clarity. Keep the restatement in the local law so the Code is self-contained.

    • Remove as redundant. Omit provisions that duplicate state law.

• Enforcement of existing State law

  • Where it stands: Raised by every resident who spoke. A State training session on e-bike and e-scooter enforcement was held on April 29 and attended by eighteen local officers, so the department has been trained. Public comment questioned why enforcement has not followed. Requires no local law.

    • Request a report. Ask the Chief what has been enforced since April 29 and what is preventing enforcement.

    • Direct enforcement. Recommend that the Common Council direct enforcement of existing State provisions, including the manufacturer label requirement in VTL 1242(11)(b).

    • Education first. Recommend a public education period before enforcement increases.

    • No action. Leave enforcement to the department's discretion.

• Enforcement against riders under 16

  • Where it stands: VTL 1242(13) bars issuing a summons to a rider under 16 and permits one only to a parent or guardian present at the scene. Public comment identified under-16 riders as the principal safety concern. Because counsel advises the local penalties attach to local law rather than to VTL 1242, a Chapter 207 violation may fall outside that restriction, which would allow a $150 fine against a rider the State exempts. Referred to counsel.

    • Mirror State law. Provide that a summons for a rider under 16 issues to a parent or guardian present, or not at all.

    • Permit local enforcement. Allow a summons to issue to a rider under 16 under the local chapter.

    • Warning only. Provide for a warning and parental notification rather than a summons.

    • Defer. Await counsel's response before deciding.

• Devices that are not legal e-bikes

  • Where it stands: Raised in written comment and echoed during public comment. A device without operable pedals, above 750 watts, or throttled past its class limit is a limited use motorcycle or an unregistered motor vehicle, and operating one on a city street without registration, license and insurance is already unlawful. Neither the resolution nor the draft addresses these devices.

    • Define and address. Include a definition in the local law distinguishing these devices and stating that existing law applies.

    • Enforcement direction only. Address through direction to the Police Department without amending the Code. No action.

    • Both. Define in the chapter and pair with enforcement direction.

• Sidewalk conduct rules

  • Where it stands: Applies if sidewalk operation is authorized. Public comment favored regulating conduct rather than prohibiting the device and proposed that pedestrians and vulnerable users always have the right of way. An audible signal is already required by State law. Note that a speed limit and any e-bike-specific rule would not reach conventional bicycles, which are already permitted on City sidewalks, and that officers cannot readily measure speed or identify class by observation. Below are suggested items for sidewalk conduct rules to implement.

    • Duty to yield. Express requirement to yield the right of way to pedestrians and vulnerable users.

    • Audible signal. Require an audible signal before overtaking a pedestrian.

    • Dismount if unsafe

    • Require dismounting where the sidewalk is too narrow or obstructed to pass safely.

    • Adult accompanying a child. Expressly permit an adult to ride alongside a child riding on the sidewalk.

    • Sidewalk speed limit. Set a maximum sidewalk speed. Specify the figure in your notes.

    • Device-neutral drafting. Apply the conduct rules to all bicycles rather than only to e-bikes.

• Electric scooters

  • Where it stands: Not part of the referral. Governed by a parallel State scheme in VTL Article 34-D. State law already caps scooters at 15 mph and requires helmets for operators 16 and 17, so a scooter is currently more regulated than an e bike. The April 29 police training covered both device types. The Committee deferred discussion

    • Include now. Draft any local law to cover both device types.

    • Defer with a date. Record the deferral and set a date to revisit.

    • Exclude. Address e-bikes only.

• Helmet distribution program

  • Where it stands: Proposed in public comment as an alternative or complement to a mandate. Adirondack Cycling Advocates offered to fund helmets for distribution, and the school district already provides helmets to students at bike safety events. Requires no local law.

    • Endorse a program. Recommend that the city partner on helmet distribution.

    • Pair with a requirement. Adopt a helmet requirement together with a distribution program and a fine waiver.

    • No action.

• Disability accommodation

  • Where it stands: Not raised in the referral or in public comment. The city is subject to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Federal regulation at 28 CFR 35.137 requires a public entity to make reasonable modifications permitting other power-driven mobility devices used by individuals with mobility disabilities, and to complete a five-factor assessment before restricting a device in a specific facility. This becomes more relevant, not less, if sidewalk operation is authorized. The draft contains no accommodation provision.

    • Include a provision. Add reasonable modification language tracking 28 CFR 35.137, and a helmet exception for documented medical contraindication.

    • Refer to counsel. Ask the City Attorney to draft appropriate language before any version advances.

    • No action.

• Identification of personally owned devices

  • Where it stands: VTL 1242(5)(b)(i) provides that a city having jurisdiction over a sidewalk shall provide a method by which a personally owned e-bike may be identified as such. VTL 1282(7)(b) imposes the same obligation for electric scooters. Both use mandatory language directed at the municipality and neither appears to have been implemented. This is also the only mechanism in State law linking a device of this type to an owner.

  • Implement. Direct that a method be established and consider whether it serves the Committee's accountability concerns.

  • Seek advice. Ask the City Attorney whether these obligations are outstanding and what compliance requires.

  • No action.

• Implementation

  • Where it stands: Process matters that will affect any version that advances. A local law takes effect on filing with the Secretary of State unless otherwise provided. Any geographic restriction or designation carries a signage obligation under VTL 1242(3)(a) with cost and DPW workload implications. Below are recommendations for implementation.

    • Transition period. Provide a defined warning period or delayed effective date before enforcement begins.

    • Scope signage. Obtain a DPW estimate for sign count, fabrication, installation and maintenance before adopting any geographic restriction.

    • Consultation. Seek input from the Police Chief, DPW, Recreation, and the school district before a vote.

    • Public hearing. Confirm the hearing requirement and schedule it.