If Colorado Springs voters are to decide on electric bikes’ legal day in city parks and open spaces, it won’t be in April.

The City Council on Tuesday declined to ask the question on the upcoming ballot, citing too many complexities and too little time. Tuesday was the council’s last day to approve ballot language for the April 1 election.

Earlier this month a group of prominent civic leaders challenged a proposed policy that would permit certain e-bikes on all city trails where other bikes are allowed. That would be a violation of the 1997 voter-approved Trails, Open Space and Parks (TOPS) ordinance, according to that group and others who have spoken out since the fall, when the policy was first presented by the parks department.

Critics have said the TOPS ordinance — which established a sales tax to fund open spaces, trail building and maintenance — prohibits motorized vehicles, including e-bikes.

“Let us work through all of these really important issues and then in the future, if it needs to go to the ballot, then it goes to the ballot,” City Council President Randy Helms said during Monday’s work session. “But this is a confusing and hard subject, and the timeline to put this on the (April) ballot for me is not enough to get the right language.”

Fellow council members voted in agreement, except David Leinweber.

The parks department’s proposed policy applies to Class 1 e-bikes, which provide limited motorized boosts only when the rider is pedaling, Leinweber pointed out. He said standard mountain bikers could go just as fast or faster — echoing policy proponents who have said the e-bike debate too often focuses on bike capabilities rather than rider behavior.

“We’re talking about a bicycle,” Leinweber insisted. “We’re not talking about whether this is a motorcycle, which I believe was the original intent of TOPS.”

Maybe so, said Wayne Williams. But the intent of TOPS was a question for voters, not the City Council, argued the former council member and former Colorado secretary of state.

Representing Together for Colorado Springs, comprising some of the 1997 TOPS founders, Williams has pointed to the ordinance specifying “no motorized vehicles” and “provisions shall not be repealed or amended except by a vote of the registered electorate of the City.”

Council’s decision tabling a ballot question was “reasonable,” Williams said. “The question then becomes what that means for the meeting in February.”

It’s uncertain whether the council will vote on the proposed policy, as was previously expected following mixed votes in the fall from the city’s parks board and TOPS Working Committee.

“I would note we feel very passionately, potentially litigiously, that the city cannot make that change without going to a vote of the people,” Williams told the council.

Parks Director Britt Haley, formerly a working attorney, said she respected the opinion.

“However, we also have a City Attorney’s Office,” she said. “They have advised there is a different route that is permissible, and that is the route that my department is pursuing — the one that was advised by the City Attorney’s Office and embraced by our leadership.”

Mayor Yemi Mobolade voiced his support of the policy as it was presented in October. This was after a city-run survey reportedly found about 60% of 3,804 respondents supported the proposed policy.

“Which clearly shows a big sentiment toward understanding e-bikes are part of parks now, and there really is no getting around that,” said Keith Thompson, executive director of Colorado Springs Mountain Bike Association.

His nonprofit as well as Trails and Open Space Coalition have pushed for the proposed policy, insisting legal access is past due, along with an approach to education and enforcement. Other Front Range land managers decided on e-bike access years ago, including in Douglas, Jefferson and Boulder counties.

The city’s proposed policy aims to classify Class 1 e-bikes as “non-motorized use” on parkland. It was a “simple clarification,” Thompson suggested, in line with federal, state and local language that classifies e-bikes separately from motorized vehicles requiring license and registration.

Proponents have worried about a ballot question and potential campaigns inspiring e-bike hate.

“There’s enough animosity about bike lanes” and trail conflicts, said Ron Ramsey, an e-bike rider who has spent years pushing for expanded access in his retirement. “It’d just be an opportunity for a voter who is unknowledgeable about the benefits.”

E-bikes “serve a great purpose,” Williams said. “But that doesn’t mean they belong everywhere. And even if they did belong everywhere, you still have to get voter approval.”

Some council members sounded in agreement regarding TOPS, including Yolanda Avila.

“How do we go back and say, Well, wait a minute, we need to define what a motorized vehicle is,” she said. “What precedent does that set?”

But Leinweber said he was “continuously disappointed” by the debate.

“I know a lot of people that have Class 1 e-bikes that are just really anxious to use our trails,” he said. “We need to move on this.”