Conway introduces e-scooter code, sends ordinance to committee for public input
Loading...
Summary
Council introduced a proposed municipal code (Chapter 8.82) regulating shared e-scooters — including permit fees, GPS tracking and two-hour complaint response — and voted 8–0 to hold the item for further review and public comment.
The Conway City Council introduced an ordinance to adopt Chapter 8.82 of the municipal code to govern dockless e-scooter and scooter-share programs and voted to hold the proposal in committee for further public review and staff follow-up.
Miss Tucker, planning and transportation staff, described the draft as a compilation of practices from other Arkansas municipalities. Key regulatory elements under consideration include a company permit fee (proposed $150), a per-scooter fee (proposed $20), GPS tracking on devices, a two-hour response requirement for complaints about scooters left in prohibited areas, and specific prohibitions on placement in downtown sidewalks and some trails. The ordinance as presented does not yet set a firm age requirement for riders; staff said the company likely will propose its age limits but the council could add one to the local ordinance.
The council discussed operational and safety questions: whether privately owned scooters are covered by the ordinance, enforcement and whether police should be consulted, and whether scooter companies would be licensed for road use. Miss Tucker said state law prevents a municipality from banning scooters outright but allows regulation. "The state has passed a law that we cannot keep them out of our city. However, we can regulate them," she said.
Council members requested that staff gather public input (the council suggested compiling emails and other comments and distributing them to members prior to the committee/council discussion). The mayor said staff will accept questions sent to councilagenda@conwayarkansas.gov and that the ordinance could be returned to council for a vote on June 24 if the council so chooses; staff indicated some members had also referenced March 1 as a possible effective date if adopted.
After discussion and several clarifying questions about enforcement and scope, a motion to hold the ordinance in committee so staff could collect public input and return with answers passed unanimously.
