Flagstaff Sustainability Commission members on Thursday discussed whether to invite shared micro‑mobility operators — companies that provide rentable electric scooters and e‑bikes — to operate in the city and, if so, how to regulate them.

The discussion, led by MetroPlan and transportation staff, focused on a feasibility study that lays out options ranging from a single city‑selected contractor to a permit regime that allows multiple vendors. Kim Austin of MetroPlan said the study updated a 2017 bike‑share feasibility report to include e‑scooters and noted that many peer cities now operate mostly scooters, which represent roughly 75% of device fleets in comparable programs.

The report’s authors and transit planners argued micro‑mobility can reduce vehicle miles traveled, serve as a “first/last mile” connection to transit and help the city meet climate goals. “About 64% of riders who use shared micro‑mobility devices use it to connect to transit,” said a presenter citing North American industry data. Staff also pointed to draft local plans that call for more options to reduce driving and greenhouse gases.

Commissioners and staff spent the bulk of the hour on operational questions: how to prevent devices from blocking sidewalks and ADA access, how to require vendor responsibility for maintenance and removal, whether to require geofencing to control where and when devices operate, and how to set parking corrals and distribution requirements to reach underserved neighborhoods.

“Without a formal mechanism, companies can come and dump scooters and bikes,” said a staff member involved in earlier pilots, urging a permit or contract approach that would let the city specify requirements for insurance, parking, geofencing, low‑income fares and hours of operation.

Speakers also flagged safety risks. MetroPlan’s presentation listed personal injury as a high‑impact risk that can cross jurisdictions (city streets, state highways and university property). Presenters recommended steps to reduce risk: robust vendor insurance and contract liability provisions, device safety features such as lights and brakes, education campaigns, and encouragement of helmet use.

Commissioners debated whether to require a single vendor or allow multiple operators. Some said a single operator can simplify enforcement and make it easier to require equitable distribution; others cautioned that too many restrictions could deter vendors from participating. “Don’t make it so restrictive that a vendor doesn’t want to come,” a commissioner said.

Staff described tools the city could use if it issues a solicitation or permit: minimum fleet sizes to ensure reliable service, parking corrals, geofencing so devices cannot enter sensitive pedestrian zones, mandatory equity measures such as cash payment options or subsidized memberships, and vendor obligations to remove and collect devices nightly or when a company ceases operations.

No formal action was taken. Staff said they will finish outreach with stakeholder groups and return a recommendation to city council on whether to adopt a procurement approach, a permit approach, or to change existing city code. The presenters asked commissions for early feedback to shape any procurement or permit details.