Minutes of the Work Session held on April 9, 2026

Meeting Minutes 
City Council Work Session 
 
April 9, 2026 | 4:00 p.m. 
Council Chambers Conference Room 
88 E. Chicago St., Chandler, AZ 
 
 
Call to Order 
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kevin Hartke at 4:00 p.m. 
 
Roll Call 
Council Attendance 
 
 
 
 
Appointee Attendance 
Mayor Kevin Hartke  
 
 
 
 
John Pombier, City Manager 
Vice Mayor Angel Encinas  
 
 
 
Tawn Kao, Deputy City Attorney  
Councilmember Christine Ellis 
 
 
 
Jennifer Ekblad, City Clerk 
Councilmember Jane Poston 
 
 
 
  
Councilmember Matt Orlando   
 
 
*Councilmember OD Harris 
 
 
 
 
Councilmember Jennifer Hawkins 
 
*Councilmember Harris attended virtually. 
 
Staff in Attendance 
 
Tadd Wille, Assistant City Manager  
Dawn Lang, Deputy City Manager / Chief Financial Officer  
Ryan Peters, Deputy City Manager 
Leah Powell, Deputy City Manager 
Marge Zylla, Strategic Initiatives Director  
Jason Sieczkowski, Assistant Police Chief 
Tera Scherer, Executive Coordinator 
Riann Balch, Neighborhood Resources Director 
Jason Crampton, Transportation Planning Manager 
Dawn Gingerich, Assistant City Attorney 
Matt Burdick, Communications & Public Affairs Director 
John Sefton, Community Services Director 
Bryan Chapman, Police Chief

Page 2 of 12 
 
 
Discussion 
1. 
Discussion and Presentation of Possible Amendments to the Chandler Municipal Code 
Related to Bird Feeding and E-Bikes 
 
MAYOR HARTKE called for a staff presentation.  
 
JOHN POMBIER, City Manager, introduced the discussion item. 
 
TADD WILLE, Assistant City Manager, presented the following presentation. 
• E-Bike Policy Work Session 
• Where we are | Context Recap 
• Today’s Decisions – at a Glance 
 
MAYOR HARTKE commented that the seven decisions up for consideration were developed 
through discussion in the Council subcommittee. 
 
MR. WILLE agreed and added that consideration was given to best practices seen across other 
Arizona municipalities and nationwide.  
 
MR. WILLE continued the presentation.  
• Decision 1 of 7 | Helmet Requirements (Riders under 18)  
 
VICE MAYOR ENCINAS asked if helmets are required for regular bicycle riders under 18 years old. 
 
JASON CRAMPTON, Transportation Planning Manager, said no.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO said he would prefer to be consistent with other cities. He asked 
whether the city would work with schools and bicycle shops to share information.  
 
MR. WILLE said yes, once regulations are in place, education will be a focus. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO said he is in favor of requiring helmets for all e-bike riders under 18 
years old. 
 
MAYOR HARTKE said even though potential decisions would not be in place by the Annual Family 
Bike Ride, it is a good place to share messaging about bike helmet safety.  
 
Council was in consensus on requiring helmets for all e-bike riders under 18 years old. 
 
MR. CRAMPTON continued the presentation.

Page 3 of 12 
 
• Decision 2 of 7 | Age Restriction – Class 3 e-bikes (28 mph) 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ELLIS asked if this applied to riding e-bikes in the bike lane on the road or on 
sidewalks. 
 
MR. CRAMPTON shared that it was a separate consideration before Council tonight and would be 
shared later in the presentation. This question would restrict the age range for each e-bike 
classification, not where they can ride.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked how a Class 3 e-bike is recognized in an enforcement 
scenario.  
 
MR. CRAMPTON said it could be based on the bike's speed, and some locally sold e-bikes have a 
sticker or indicator to show the class.  
 
JASON SIECZKOWSKI, Assistant Police Chief, added that it would be up to the officer performing 
the stop to either observe the sticker on the e-bike, check the e-bike's speed, or ask the rider if 
they know what class the e-bike is.   
 
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS expressed concerns about officers' ability to identify e-bike classes and 
asked what that looks like in practice. 
 
MR. POMBIER said the main priority will be education about new potential enforcement through 
bike shops, schools, and other resources. Enforcement will be considered down the line; the goal 
is education and voluntary compliance. E-bike enforcement will present enforcement risks; the 
goal will be to get regulations in place, then begin education. The city will work with neighboring 
jurisdictions to get input on what has been effective in enforcement.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked if there was communication between Chandler and the school 
districts located within the city.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE said communication between Chandler and school districts has not yet occurred 
on this issue because there is no ordinance yet in place. Mayor Hartke asked if Councilmember 
Harris meant that school districts provided input on this topic. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS clarified he meant school district input and buy-in and emphasized 
collaboration with various stakeholders on this topic. 
 
MR. POMBIER said the city has had preliminary conversations with the school district, but the 
district is seeking direction from the city. He added that all these school districts have schools in 
multiple cities, and the more consistent Chandler can be with neighboring jurisdictions, the more 
consistent the school districts can be in providing messaging to students and families. The goal of

Page 4 of 12 
 
the decision points presented today is to get direction from Council on how the city can move 
forward, and then share that document with City Council, school districts, and the public to gather 
their input. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS said he would like to see a follow-up with school districts and education 
partners around Chandler and other municipalities.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE noted that the city would seek collaboration and input from school districts and 
other stakeholders on the remaining seven decisions.  
 
Council was in consensus on requiring a minimum age of 16 to ride Class 3 e-bikes.  
 
MR. CRAMPTON continued the presentation.  
• Decision 3 of 7 | Age Restriction – Class 1 & 2 e-bikes 
 
MAYOR HARTKE commented that he sees widespread e-bike use among middle and high 
schoolers in the community and supported this decision.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON shared concerns about the enforcement of this requirement.  
 
BRYAN CHAPMAN, Police Chief, said it can be difficult to determine children’s ages; officers may 
focus more on rider behavior and safety than on observable age, and then provide education. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked if the age restriction would be helpful in enforcement.  
 
CHIEF CHAPMAN emphasized that this is a Council policy decision; officers would provide 
education and enforcement in accordance with whatever the Council supported. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ELLIS asked why age 12 was picked as the minimum age to ride Class 1 & 2 e-
bikes independently.  
 
MR. WILLE said 12 was chosen to allow e-bike use for middle and high school students.  
 
VICE MAYOR ENCINAS commented that he was focused on the Class 3 e-bikes and helmet use. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked for more information on what a no change – no age restriction 
would look like. 
 
MR. WILLE said anyone of any age could ride an electric bicycle that could go up to 20 mph.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO noted that other municipalities have age restrictions, such as 14 or 
16 years old.

Page 5 of 12 
 
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked if there is an age restriction for electric scooters.  
 
MR. CRAMPTON said there is no age limit for personally owned electric scooters, but there may 
be an age restriction on scooter rental apps that participate in Chandler.   
 
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked how fast electric scooters go. 
 
MR. CRAMPTON said electric scooters can travel up to 15 mph.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO noted that electric bikes are harder to stop than regular bicycles, 
which may be difficult for children and teenagers to manage. He said he was in favor of a minimum 
age.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ELLIS said an aspect of this is parental preference and education.  
 
Council was in consensus to not require a minimum age to ride Class 1 & 2 e-bikes independently.   
 
MR. WILLE continued the presentation.  
• Decision 4 of 7 | Sidewalk Access – Class 3 e-bikes (28 mph) 
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked whether enforcement would focus on observable issues, such as Class 3 e-
bikes riding at 28 mph on sidewalks, rather than Class 3 e-bikes riding at a controlled speed.  
 
CHIEF CHAPMAN said enforcement would depend on rider behavior, including safety risks to 
pedestrians.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS commented about the enforcement of sidewalk access and any related 
enforcement costs, noting he would like to see Class 3 allowed on sidewalks.  
 
 
COUNCILMEMBER HAWKINS said she would prefer to prohibit Class 3 e-bikes on sidewalks. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ELLIS said she would prefer to prohibit Class 3 e-bikes on sidewalks. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON said she would like to prohibit Class 3 e-bikes from sidewalks.  
 
VICE MAYOR ENCINAS said he would like to see Class 3 allowed on sidewalks, as sometimes the 
bike lane can be hazardous on the road.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO said he would like to prohibit Class 3 e-bikes on sidewalks. 
 
MAYOR HARTKE said he would like to prohibit Class 3 e-bikes on sidewalks.

Page 6 of 12 
 
Council was in consensus to prohibit Class 3 e-bikes from riding on Chandler sidewalks. 
MR. WILLE continued the presentation.  
• Decision 5 of 7 | Sidewalk Access – class 1 & 2 e-bikes 
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked the Council which option they would prefer, noting consensus from each 
councilmember.  
 
Council was in consensus to allow Class & 2 e-bikes on Chandler sidewalks.  
 
MR. WILLE continued the presentation. 
• Decision 6 of 7 | Speed Limits on Sidewalks 
 
MAYOR HARTKE shared that he had experienced fast speeds from an e-bike while a pedestrian 
and was in favor of a speed limit.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked whether the speed limit would be posted physically.  
 
MR. POMBIER said it would most likely not be physically posted; it would be a tool for parents to 
share information on the restrictions with their children.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked how this information would be posted and communicated to 
riders.  
 
MR. POMBIER noted that there would likely be few speed limit stops due to this restriction, but it 
would improve pedestrian and bicyclist interactions.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE added that speed limits could be posted around schools in common areas where 
bikes are ridden.  
 
MR. POMBIER said any posted bike speed limit signs would need to be posted in areas where it 
would not conflict with road speed limit signs.  
 
Council was in consensus to set a speed limit for Class 1 & 2 e-bikes on sidewalks. 
 
MR. CRAMPTON continued the presentation.  
• Decision 7 of 7 | E-bikes in City Parks 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if trails are considered under this decision as well.  
 
MR. CRAMPTON explained that most of the trails that are not along canals are within city parks. 
This could apply to city-owned trails as well. It would not apply to SRP canals, as SRP-owned canal 
trails prohibit e-bikes.

Page 7 of 12 
 
MAYOR HARTKE noted that speed limits for e-bikes could not be posted on SRP canal trails as e-
bikes are prohibited.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON said she wanted the most consistent option that aligns with the earlier 
consensus on the sidewalk and speed limit.  
 
Council was in consensus to allow Class 1 & 2 e-bikes in Chandler city parks with a speed limit, and 
to prohibit Class 3 e-bikes.  
 
MR. CRAMPTON continued the presentation.  
• Included in Ordinance | Night Safety Equipment 
• Decision Summary | Council Direction Record 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO commented that with the consistent speed limit on sidewalks, city 
parks, and trails, the e-bike speed limit could be posted in parks.  
 
MR. CRAMPTON continued the presentation.  
• Education, Outreach & Signage 
 
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS emphasized the importance of outreach before it comes back as an 
ordinance. 
 
MAYOR HARTKE said schools would be allowed to provide input on this topic. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS stressed the importance of collecting input from schools and 
community members on this topic before an ordinance comes back to Council for a vote.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE agreed and said more information can be shared when this item returns to 
Council.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked for the time frame for approval of the ordinance.  
 
MR. POMBIER said the goal would be to complete the ordinance before the end of the school year 
so that the city can work with schools on education.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE suggested this could come back at one of the May Council meetings.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON suggested using digital advertising to get the word out.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked how law enforcement would respond to individuals who do not comply 
with the e-bike restrictions.

Page 8 of 12 
 
ASSISTANT CHIEF SIECZKOWSKI said the intention would be to communicate with the parents or 
family and connect with other resources, such as a school’s School Resource Officer, to curb 
unsafe behaviors.  
 
• E-Bike Policy Work session 
 
MR. WILLE presented the following presentation.  
• Bird Feeding Policy  
• Background 
 
RIANN BALCH, Neighborhood Resources Director, continued the presentation.  
• Decision 1 Should Chandler add a specific bird-feeding ordinance? 
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked how the current infestation ordinance would apply to code complaints 
regarding pigeons.  
 
MS. BALCH said the current ordinance does not cover bird feeding. Some other municipalities 
have specific ordinances related to bird feeding. The existing Chandler city code addresses 
nuisances caused by birds.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked how a new provision for bird feeding would have clear enforcement 
thresholds. 
 
MS. BALCH said evidence of an infestation or nuisance would require inspection by a code officer 
who would observe the issue.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked how code enforcement would inspect a complaint.  
 
TAWN KAO, Deputy City Attorney, began explaining that a complaint from a resident may include 
pictures or witness testimony that could allow a code enforcement officer to open a case and 
begin an investigation. 
 
MR. POMBIER explained that part of this process involved reviewing enforcement tactics and 
ensuring the city is following current law. In a situation where there's clear evidence, a resident is 
willing to testify, and they have video, that will be enough for the city to proceed without a code 
enforcement officer viewing it themselves. If that is not enough, it gives enough to start an 
investigation. If a code enforcement officer is standing on a public sidewalk and they can see a 
violation, or if they're invited in by a resident and they can see it, that is allowable and does not 
violate the law. Officers cannot enter someone's backyard without consent. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS requested more information on how evidence would be obtained in a 
case related to this topic and the city’s legal standing.

Page 9 of 12 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO noted that this is a normal procedure for code enforcement 
violation investigations.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked how a clear enforcement pathway could be established when 
determining which neighbor is the source of the nuisance or infestation.  
 
MS. BALCH said it is challenging. The language on the slide is an example; staff can go back and 
refine it to make it less ambiguous.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO agreed and would like to see more specific language.  
 
Council was in consensus about adding a specific bird-feeding ordinance.  
 
MS. BALCH continued the presentation.  
• Decision 2 Go further – restrict pigeon feeding specifically? 
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked Council how they would like to proceed. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS supported Option C, to prohibit feeding pigeons specifically.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ELLIS said she would prefer Option C, to prohibit feeding pigeons.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked about the difference between the options presented. 
 
MS. BALCH explained that the first option prohibits all wild bird feeding that is a nuisance. The 
second option says pigeons cannot be fed, but other wild birds can be fed in a way that is not a 
nuisance. The second option specifically prohibits the feeding of pigeons.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if nuisance feeding would be enforced under both options. 
 
MS. BALCH said yes. Both options allow enforcement for nuisance feeding.  
 
MR. WILLE said Option C, to prohibit feeding pigeons, would be an additional restriction in addition 
to nuisance feeding in the code.   
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked what other cities prohibit feeding pigeons.  
 
MS. BALCH said Phoenix and Mesa specifically prohibit feeding pigeons, and Tempe prohibits 
feeding all birds in a way that causes a nuisance. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO supported Option B, keeping the suggestion from the previous slide.

Page 10 of 12 
 
COUNCILMEMBER HAWKINS agreed and said she would prefer Option B for no pigeon-specific 
restriction.  
 
VICE MAYOR ENCINAS asked how pigeons would be prevented from feeding from other bird-feed 
sources.  
 
MS. BALCH said the suggested language to prevent pigeons would mirror what other cities have, 
including devices that prevent pigeons and ground bird feeding.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON supported Option B.  
 
VICE MAYOR ENCINAS preferred Option B.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE noted he would prefer Option C, but the majority of Council was for Option B – 
no pigeon-specific restriction.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked whether the option to apply the same rules to all non-
domesticated birds, without a pigeon-specific restriction, would give code officers sufficient 
enforcement tools.  
 
MS. BALCH said yes, the suggested language gives code officers sufficient enforcement tools. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked for more information about how industrial bird feeders would 
be considered under this potential ordinance.   
 
MS. BALCH said large industrial feeders might be something that could attract a nuisance in a 
residential area. If that is causing an attraction and creating a nuisance, that could potentially be 
covered. Responsible bird feeding spreads seed in a way that does not create attraction.  
 
Council was in consensus to pursue Option B – keep the new provision as written, applying to all 
non-domesticated birds equally, with no pigeon-specific restriction.  
 
MS. BALCH continued the presentation.  
• Education, Outreach and Enforcement 
• Questions & Discussion 
 
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked for more information in the future on what implementing a bike-
permitting process would look like. He commented that removing speed regulators from e-bikes 
should be prohibited and that this should be included in educational materials.   
 
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked whether the police department still conducts registration 
events to prevent bicycle theft; this permit proposal could be tied to those events.

Page 11 of 12 
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked if this service would be provided at the Annual Family Bike Ride. 
 
MR. CRAMPTON said the service was offered at the last couple of Family Bike Rides but was unsure 
how effective it was. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON said voluntary registration could help deter theft and provide 
education to e-bicyclists.  
 
Public Comment 
BROOK BEALL, Chandler, asked about how the different categories of e-bikes are determined 
when policing, and the difference between a sidewalk and a multi-use path. He stated that e-bikes 
are a privilege, not a right for children. He asked what the next step would be after education for 
repeat violators of e-bike restrictions. He stated that the proposed bird feeding terminology is 
ambiguous and would not address situations of bird feeding on US government properties, such 
as the SRP canal.  
 
DUANE LIDMAN, Chandler, commented that pigeon infestations could be caused by untrimmed 
palm trees, which is discussed in the city code. Pigeon infestations could be addressed by code 
enforcement through this mechanism.  
 
CRAIG LOFGREN, Chandler, spoke about the importance of informing parents and consumers of 
the difference between a Class 3 e-bike and a motorcycle.  
 
Adjourn 
The meeting was adjourned at 5:23 p.m. 
 
 
 
ATTEST:  _______________________  
______________________________ 
                       City Clerk                                                   Mayor 
 
 
Approval Date of Minutes:  April 24, 2026

Page 12 of 12 
 
Certification 
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Work 
Session of the City Council of Chandler, Arizona, held on the 9th day of April 2026.  I further certify 
that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. 
 
DATED this _______day of April, 2026. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
__________________________ 
                                                         
           City Clerk