Director of Aviation - Regular Meeting

My name is Kevin O'Neill. I'm the chair, 1st District at Large. Colleagues?

My name is Melissa Robinson, Vice Chair, 3rd District.

Jonathan Duncan, 6th District.

Lindsay French, 2nd District at Large.

Matt?

Bertha Ross, City Clerk's Office.

Jeff Martin, City Manager's Office. Andrew Bronkowski, Law Department. I'm McGeehan, CREO Department.

Our public works at work. All right. Let's hear your presentation. I guess you've got to read it first. Oh, we're going to hold that one.

Which we're holding?

Yeah. No, we're not holding it. We're holding it until the end, the first one. So we'll go to 5.08.

260508, amending Chapter 770 Code of Ordinance by repealing and replacing Section 70-1 definitions and amending Chapter 70 Code of Ordinances by enacting a new Section 70-7006, enacting electric bicycles.

Excuse me.

I'm going to repeat this. It has a committee sub.

Yes.

Okay. So, Committee Sub 260508, amending... Chapter 70, Code of Ordinances by repealing and replacing Section 70-1, Definitions and Amending Chapter 70, Code of Ordinances by enacting a new Section 70-706 entitled Electric Bicycles, Rights and Privileges, Labeled Requirements, Modifications, Require New Label Product Safety Standards, Authorized to Ride, Wear, and Exceptions, Class 3, Electric Bicycles, special provisions for the purpose of updating and adding definitions, establishing operating requirements and rights and privileges associated with electric bikes, micro mobility devices and electric motorcycles in alignment with state law and directing the city manager to coordinate distribution of public safety education material regarding electric bicycles and micro mobility devices throughout Kansas City.

Good morning Chair O'Neill, members of the committee, and staff. My name is Catherine Nace, I'm the policy director for Mayor Lucas, and today I'm going to be presenting on the committee substitute for ordinance 260508. So just as a quick refresher with the original ordinance focused on, this was really just updating our definitions for electric bicycles to match what state statute is, and broke out the three different classifications of electric bicycles. The key here was just kind of aligning it with existing state statute code. Obviously we saw in the committee presentation there were a lot of gaps in what we were trying to accomplish with the ordinance. So that brings us to the committee substitute today. We added in definitions for electric scooter, electric unicycle, motorized skateboard, and micromobility device, which are all different types of the devices that we're seeing used in our community. We then outlined the micromobility operating rules, and I'll go through the definition of what we're kind of defining micromobility as. And those operating rules define where, what speed, what the requirements are for folks operating those types of devices. And then also add in an electric motorcycle classification, which is those devices that are actually operating at a much higher speed than what we're typically maybe wanting to see, especially in particular to our youth. So I know this is a lot of words on the screen, but I wanted to go ahead and put the text in for what the definition is in the ordinance. So micro mobility device is looking at electric scooters, electric bicycles, motorized skateboards, electric unicycles. Think about this as kind of your devices that are typically going to be those lower speeds. And this includes those electric bicycles that we discussed during the original ordinance presentation with those three different classes. The highest speed those get up to are the 28 miles per hour. This does not include golf carts, motorized bicycles. Those are going to be in our other category, motorized scooters. Again, motorcycle, electric motorcycle. Those are going to be all of our higher speed types of devices.

So did you say 28 miles per hour is your?

For the electric bicycle specifically. Okay. Yes.

Do we have a speed for electric mobility devices? Do we have a range?

Yeah, we're going to get there. Yeah, no, you're good. And if I don't touch on anything, happy to, you know, obviously if there's some gaps, we can still talk through those. So the rules for the micro mobility devices, which are the list that I just went through, devices that have the highest speed they can go to as 20 miles per hour are gonna be treated the same as bicycles. They can go in bike lanes, any terrain that is typical for a bicycle that we think of every single day is gonna have those same regulations.

So just a quick question. The devices that go 20 miles per hour, like bicycles, same rights and duties, 20 miles an hour is determined by the manufacturer? Or how do we, if this bicycle goes 28 miles an hour, but our limits are 20 miles an hour, compliance on that is going to be near impossible.

Yeah, the state statute requires them to, the bikes, to list the class on the bike, the manufacturer, whenever they're selling it, which is why we also added that into our.

I can't, I'm kind of having trouble.

Sorry, I can, oh wow, yeah, that's a lot louder, sorry. Good morning, everyone. Hope everyone's awake. The state statute requires that the bicycles are labeled with their certain type of class. So that is a part of that labor requirement, which is why we added that into our ordinance so that our city code aligns with state statute in that in that vein. The key here is by us explicitly stating what the miles per hour allowance is, is it does allow for enforcement because that's something that we can clock and we can track. So, for example, if KCPD is seeing someone on a bike going 35 miles they can track that and then they can look at the different regulations on the bike, the speed it's supposed to be going, which are things that I'm gonna be addressing later in the presentation.

And do we have a compliance piece that if a bike store is selling a bike that is going 30 miles an hour, but he's classifying it as a smaller bike, whatever that,

Yeah, I think that my understanding is that that isn't fairly common from folks in the community that are typically shopping at these bike stores. However, we would have the same authority to enforce any Ordinance or thing on the books same as like any state statute as we currently have for like ordinance violations for that It's because we now have a written in our code So if there is if there is a misrepresentation by the bike seller and are these are these labels?

Are they labeled by the state? I mean by the manufacturer or by the seller That the manufacturer I believe So If they, I guess my confusion would be most bikes probably are not made in the state of Missouri. They're bringing them in. So where does this, so if the label, if they have a different law in Kentucky and the bike is made in Kentucky and they bring it back here, my confusion.

Yeah, yeah, that's a fair point. And maybe we would need to look and make sure that it specifies that the manufacturer and the seller have view that label on there. If that's not already, I can't remember exactly the wording that... is in there, but yeah, I could see that as a gap that someone could circumvent. I do think, again, from talking with local organizations that are working on, you know, working with electric bike companies that are selling these bikes that require to be labeled, they don't see that very often, but I definitely think we could specify that language.

We don't see what very often?

That they're not labeled correctly. that bikes aren't labeled correctly.

So do we have a uniformity around the Midwest or such that we're passing the same laws as other states or other cities?

I think that that's kind of the goal here. You know, we've been working closely with Bike Walk KC and their policy directors is here in the audience today to answer any questions. But some of this that we're putting in today is kind of their suggested model legislation. It's not all exactly the same language because we wanted to make sure to cater it to Kansas City existing code, definitions, things of that nature. But the goal is that, you know, across the Kansas City metro region, we have aligned policies and procedures because it also helps, you know, as folks go from one jurisdiction to the next, they know what's expected of them, and it's kind of enforced across the board. Of course, that's then up to all of the surrounding jurisdictions to also pass those same policies and procedures, but that's, I think, the goal the bike walk is trying to accomplish. And that's kind of what is spearheading some of this effort here.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.

No worries. Any other questions while we're paused?

Mr. Chair, you'll see later in the presentation, more common what's happening is that kids are modifying these bikes to put faster batteries on them. So clocking them with the speed is a good practical way to enforce them.

Thank you, Councilman. We're looking at speed more than anything else.

Yeah, because that's the easiest thing for us to be able to see and actually enforce, right, rather than having to stop and on that spot know what the wattage or the type of motor is and kind of all those things. And that's because it does get kind of complex. So kind of thinking what's the simplest way that we can actually enforce it and communicate to people what their expectations are when using these devices. So any device that goes above 20 miles per hour is banned from sidewalks, bike lanes, multi-use paths. Again, no sidewalk riding above 15 miles per hour, so really trying to mitigate a lot of the that issues with pedestrian traffic as well. But looking at devices that are capable of going over 28 miles per hour, so that would probably be those class three electric bicycles, can operate on roads with 25 miles per hour speed limits. So again, making sure that they're also not going on roads of 50 miles per hour and things of that nature. As far as the age range, I know this was something we talked a lot about last committee session and our concerns with a lot of the youth that we're seeing on these devices. No riders or passengers under the age of 16 are able to operate a device that can go faster than 20 miles per hour. Then we're looking at no riders under the age of 12 can operate a micro mobility device that is capable of going up to 20 miles per hour. So if you're 12 years old, you really need to have one of those micro mobility devices that has a much lower rating speed. Of course, no operating under the influence, no passengers. unless the device is designed to them. So thinking about, you know, people just kind of hopping on the back of these bikes when there's not really, they're not created for multiple riders, no interstate highway use, and then persons under 18 shall wear approved helmet, which we do have some language in the code about folks under 18 wearing helmets already.

Just back to that one, just a quick comment. No riders or passengers under 16 on devices capable of 20, and then the number six says no riders under 12 can operate a micromobility device under. What is the significant difference in that statement?

The difference is that any device that can go faster than 20 miles per hour, you have to be 16 or older. So think like you have to be the age of your driver's license if you're going to ride a device that can go faster than 20 miles per hour. Then we're kind of thinking about the next tier of like 12 to 16. If your device can go 20 miles per hour, if you're 12 to 16, you can't ride that either. So that's kind of getting that up to 20 and then over 20. So we're thinking about faster than 20 miles per hour, but also up to as far as the max speed. So the 12 to 16-year-olds could ride a device that goes up to 15 miles per hour, but they couldn't ride one that goes up to 20.

It seems like those are kind of redundant. I think to that point, you should probably change that to be more specific that they can ride up to 15. Because right, I'm missing something. Doesn't that sound kind of duplicative?

I hear you. They do kind of overlap because obviously a 12-year-old then wouldn't be riding something over 20 miles per hour. But I think the idea here is to kind of have some tiered allowances. So thinking about a 15-year-old could ride a device that goes up to 20 miles per hour, but an 11-year-old couldn't. And that's what that number six gets at.

I guess just rewording number six so it's a little bit more clear that no riders under 12 can operate a device above 15 miles per hour? Kind of like you have on number five. Because it's kind of unclear that if they, I guess if they're able to operate at 20 miles per hour or up to 20 miles per hour, and then the 14 to, 16-year-olds.

Basically, five just covers six. So in other words, 16 and under just can't drive anything over 20 miles an hour.

It seems like six is greater than or equal to 20 miles per hour, which is different than greater than 20 miles per hour. Yeah, it's different. It's just a little confusing. I agree, though, it seems.

Yeah, and I can clarify that. The idea, the whole intent would be no one under 16 can do Faster than 20 miles per hour. So we've all agreed on that. That's number five, right? Six is thinking folks that are, you know, 14, 15, maybe they can go on devices that are a little bit faster than your 10 and 11-year-old, right? And that's trying to make that distinction. I understand maybe this language isn't clarified. I would just change the wording. Are you thinking you want an explicit speed? Because the idea is that we wouldn't want them on these mobility devices that are capable of going that fast.

I guess I appreciate... Maybe just the greater than and less than, but probably not everybody understands math. Yeah.

So it might be better.

OK. Mr. Chair?

Yes, sir.

Catherine, section 70-707F, do we just want to strike that? No person under the age of 12 shall operate a micromobility device with a maximum operating speed capability of 20 miles per hour or less.

That's fine if that's what, I mean.

I've got to talk to Eric.

He's upset with me. Like typically the way that these are sold and the way that the devices are programmed, they go to 20 miles per hour is a common cap. I think it makes sense to have a greater than 20 miles per hour, but it does not make sense to have something that's greater to or equal to 20 miles per hour because you're going to have most devices are capped or governed at 20 miles per hour. And so that's kind of just a general cap based on type one, type two, type three e-bikes and scooters. I think we should get rid of number six because it's not that it's redundant, but it's because Basically, you're going to eliminate every single device pretty much sold as an electric bicycle if you're capping at it. Because there's nothing that's capped at 19 miles per hour is what this is saying. And then I would also suggest number five, I think passengers could be problematic. I think that that 20 mile per hour cap is... Then we're talking about pedicabs. Are we going to have to have enforcement of pedicabs? Every time my son, who's 13, rode on a pedicab just recently, we were definitely going more than 20 miles per hour. That's another discussion. What should the speed limit be? But I think 20 miles per hour is maybe not the...

Is, is pedicabs, oh they are not, they're not, they don't have engines, they are. They're electric motors. They're electric, yeah.

And they can go like 35 miles an hour pretty fast, which is another thing.

Okay, so let me make sure I understand where we're getting our information from as it relates to what's safe, what's not safe, and the actual ages. Is this coming from pediatricians? Is this coming from the safety community?

This was a part of the model legislation that was provided to us that is being advocated for across the Kansas City region. I think... Model legislation from where?

BikeWalk KC. Okay, so BikeWalk KC, are they here today? Yes. Okay, so if you could please come and share... interested in the 16 and the 12. I believe parents would if my 12 year old and under my six year old shouldn't be on these devices at all. It's important to communicate that. Yeah. And maybe that's, you know, just, you know, sign saying not, you know, beware for children that are 12 and under. But I have deep concerns around removing the 12-year-old if, in fact, experts are saying it's not safe for a six-year-old to be on these devices at all. So can you, do you mind if he?

I don't mind, but I want to make one quick comment first. The 12-year-old part came a part of my research that I found because I also know that in our community, we've been talking a lot about extremely young children. kids in the neighborhood, and that was something that I would have to find the exact place that I read about a 12-year-old cutoff as far as an example that I read somewhere. Bike Walk KC provided explicitly the 16-year-old, but I know that when we were talking, we were really trying to hone in on the youth safety part, so I felt like this actually added And that was the goal here, understanding that the language maybe wasn't exactly clear. But just want to give that distinction before Ryan discusses with us about what came from them and what was added from my own research based on committee concerns.

That's very helpful. Who's going to answer my question?

All right. Thank you. Okay. Good morning, everyone. I'm Ryan McCarrum. I'm the director of policy at Bike Walk KC. Yeah, like this? Is this better?

Better?

We're still trying to adjust it. Okay, yeah. So we are advocating for this policy for electronic electric bikes and separating them from motorcycles. The development of these numbers, the age and all these requirements, they came along with our cooperation with the Mid-America Regional Council. People from the Johnson County Health Department were involved in the development of this. So I don't have exactly the references for the ages, but they were provided to us and they were worked upon from the health department in Johnson County, from the experts at the Mid-America Regional Council. So in our logic, it was that these electric bicycles that go at certain speeds become too dangerous for certain kids to operate. And additionally, the issue that electric motorcycles are being marketed to kids, it also creates this additional danger so this separation this uh this basing it on age that if you are on a certain age specifically the class 3 electric bicycles which can go up to 28 miles an hour these are not to be marketed to kids this is the logic behind these age references uh at least for the 16 and under because it becomes when you become at that speed it becomes just like you're operating a vehicle which requires the expertise and the licensing of operating a motorcycle or a car. It is still an electric bicycle, it is still not an electric motorcycle, and that is a very important separation. But just for us to be operating on the side of safety, personally, for us at Bike Walk KC, most of us, we have Class 1 bikes. And the bike share program in our city are Class 1 electric bicycles that are capped at 20 miles an hour. So this is being put into the legislation to differentiate the three classes of electric bicycles, and we are putting in these age numbers based on the recommendations of health experts from the health department in Johnson County, from the experts at the Mid-America Regional Council. I will be happy to share their sources for these numbers, but this was the logic behind it.

Have you looked at these sources and thoroughly vetted them?

I have reviewed the report that they provided to us. That was kind of the synthesis of all of their research. I can't say that I've looked at every specific source.

So Johnson County and Mid-American Regional Council convened multiple sessions with experts from all around the region, and it included elected officials from both sides, from the Missouri side and from the Kansas City side, to discuss all of these words and ages and the logic. Personally, as Bike Walk KC, we did not agree, for example, with the helmet requirement and the age of 18, because we think it might be leading to other issues where enforcement can be misguided in this situation, given the history of our country. But for a safety issue, we will not be arguing it. However, as I said, this is a consensus of health experts, technical experts, elected officials from multiple convenings and multiple drafts that ended up in this suggested legislation or wording for cities to adopt.

So just one last question around this topic, Mr. Chair. So the 12-year-old not operating these vehicles or these micro mobility devices at all, Is that something I hear our staff, our team members saying, this is something that was more neighborhood-based, maybe not coming from the model legislation? Was there anything from your work that says that we shouldn't be allowing children under 12?

It's not that we shouldn't be allowing them, it's just we have to, educational component is very important for us, educating the parents about what to purchase their kids. So for younger kids that are 12 or younger, I don't think it's a, we don't allow them to use our bike share electric one, class one bikes, but that is a liability because these are city operated bikes. However, as parents, some, First of all, I think kids should learn how to use their bicycles before they get on electric bicycles. And then it becomes a matter of personal responsibility from the parents that if they are confident enough their kid can use such a device, like a class one electric bicycle, that can be a matter of their choice. From a safety perspective, I wouldn't encourage too much younger kids to use such things because they can become quite fast. But I don't know. I don't have a stand on if it should be in this legislation or not. We didn't recommend it. We're not going to oppose it. This is a matter of your decision.

Just personally, when I see people, no matter what the age, riding these vehicles that don't have helmets on, I'm extremely concerned. And so when you think about 12-year-olds that... You know, just as you said, the liability, I appreciate number six because, you know, to the point of just, you know, making sure that we're providing the best safety guidance for parents.

Yes, ma'am. And for the helmet requirement, other jurisdictions that have passed it, I think Overland Park just recently did something where the enforcement of the helmet requirement is not through punitive damages or anything. It would be a warning ticket that can be discounted as soon as the parents show that they have bought a helmet for their kid. So you get a $10 ticket if your kid is not wearing a helmet, but you can waive that if you show proof of purchase of a helmet.

Okay. Thank you. I've got a question. This is what happens, Catherine, when you only have two ordinances on the docket. This is great.

This is great. No, I want to hear from all of you. So this is wonderful. Yeah.

So, you know, the bikes or, you know, micromobility devices are purchased, I would guess, 90% of the time by parents, right? And the shop owner really has no idea who that bike is going to be ridden by when it gets home. Are there, you know, you talked about, you know, competence, competent parents. Are there penalties for the parents who go out and buy these products for an eight, nine, ten year old?

I can actually answer this question. So I was actually able to run this ordinance by someone that used to work in the traffic division, KCPD, and just think, like, is this something we can enforce? How do we enforce it? The last thing we want is to start arresting a bunch of 13 year olds, right? That's not the goal here. Um, and he kind of explained that typically what they do is obviously if a, if a, if a minor is anything that involves a minor, they call the parent, they'll give them a warning and say, Hey, here's this, you know, this device, they're not supposed to be operating on it. Here are the risks. That's where like that education component can come in, which I think is section five of the ordinance where, um, KCPD actually has multiple pamphlets and brochures that they give out to folks particular situations and so then but then if the if they see the student the kid doing it again then it would be a citation to the parent in particular knowing knowing that there's a balance of obviously doing the preventative education as well I have some strong reservations about

saddling KCPD with educational components, and that's what your testimony is in terms of what they're doing, that's problematic. We need to be investing in proactive education for individuals. KCPD should be focusing on enforcement. I am curious about what that enforcement look like, what are the consequences and penalties, but if we're not going to strongly invest in an educational component. This is great, but I have strong concerns, and I would like, just from a committee substitute perspective, some dollar amount. The city is going to be investing in the public education component. I'm glad that it was added on, but it is critical and necessary that we're effectively communicating with the public and not relying upon KCPD to do that education.

Absolutely. And I'll maybe clarify my testimony just now that that was not at all what I was trying to say, that we're relying on Kansas KCPD for the education component. The section five that discusses community education and outreach actually doesn't list KCPD. That was in kind of my response to the enforcement piece of like, that's another opportunity for if they're enforcing, that's kind of a touch point to get materials out, but that is not the sole priority for our public education outreach campaign. That would be like, working with the vendors, working at community centers, libraries, schools, other opportunities to get in touch and do the education.

But you do have to understand that current practice becomes standard practice. And so when you testify that that's the current practice, then that becomes a standard practice. And there is a whole report about driving while black in Missouri. And so we have to be very careful about, yes, this says schools and community organizations. I would love for Bike Walk KC to be explicitly mentioned as one of the folks who socialized this information. But there has to be an investment. This is great. I appreciate us putting definition, rules in place. However, if we're not investing in education as to why this is harmful to give people... People want to be safe. They don't just want to be doing... activities that are unsafe, especially parents. We want our children to be safe. But if we're not going to invest in that community education, school-based education, investing in Bike Walk KC, who does an amazing job at the school level teaching young people how to ride bikes, then there is a huge missing piece and a huge missing element. just to put it on the paper that this is important to have this, but if we can't understand the greater than 20 miles per hour and capable of operating 20 miles per hour, 12 year old, 16 year old, an 18 year old has to wear a helmet, if we can't understand it, then we shouldn't expect for the general public to be able to follow it.

For Bike Walk KC to do this type of education off the top of your head, What type of dollar amount would you need?

so we already have an electronic bike guide that is ready for printing we're just finalizing it with the printer and that is a free resource that we are happy to share with folks we have leaflets and one-pagers guided guides for parents or for teachers or for police officers depending on the audience so all of this material has been prepared by us it's ready to go i've already shared it with the mayor's office and we are more than happy to We don't have a copyright on it. This is a public service from us. I think the dollar amount would be whatever is needed to print that material. If you want it in print form, like those leaflets or those booklets, and distribute it, and we can discuss that. I think when we talked with the mayor's office, there was discussion of after this is not settled, I would say, after this is approved by the Council, that we would work with the City Manager's Office to identify exactly what the costs would be and how we can best distribute these items. As of now, I think we're going to be posting it on our website, So that will be the digital version available. I will share that and we're always distributing it And that guide is not too long. It's like 16 pages. So we tried to make it a bit shorter, but To get all the information in there. It had to be what it is. However, that's why we're going with the one pagers as well We're we're just clarifying to parents if it doesn't have a pedal that is not electric bicycle things that you're buying at a These big retailers are on Amazon online marketed as bicycles. Those are not bicycles. If they are going above 20 miles an hour or 28 miles an hour for class three, these are not bicycles. These are not safe for your kids. And every time there's been an incident in our metropolitan area involving these electric devices, It is an electric motorcycle. It is something that was going 30 or 40 miles an hour, and it was not operated by a person who should be able to operate it. You should have a license to operate these. And this is what our guide tries to show, the differences between these two things. This is what our pamphlets are showing. I call them pamphlets. They're just one-page information to summarize this guide. But I cannot pull a number off of my head. I can talk to printers. I don't know who the city is contracted with to print material, but that is where it would be.

I think this is a conversation probably, I mean, I think with Bike Walk's help, this would be something that we should hire a marketing firm to do rather than, no disrespect, but your information going through an RFP process to get this information out I think is a wiser way to look at it. We're not experts at this. That's all I have. Yes, sir.

Yeah, I do want to point out that that over two years ago we passed an ordinance to do education on crosswalk compliance, and that has not been done at all. That was a directive that came with funding. It was not an unfunded mandate. This committee reviewed it, passed it, and then the City Council passed it, and nothing has happened. There was a partnership that could have happened with Mid-America Regional Council because they have funding that could have matched it. And we as a city have not done anything. So I point that out because I'm skeptical that we have the ability to deliver on a public education campaign because we've demonstrated that we don't. And I'm being heavily critical because Because I'm frustrated that we have adopted policy and created a directive and literally nothing has happened from it. And so we can talk until we're blue in the face about public education. But if there's not, if city staff is not going to deliver on it, then it's all for naught. And I'm still sitting here waiting for that to happen. I've requested updates on it, gotten updates, and it's sort of just like a, well, maybe we'll get to it at some point. But you're, I think you're right, as a former, formerly in Rayanne's position, Bike Walk KC is not a marketing, or a marketing firm, but they are the experts in this area. So partnership with a marketing firm I think would be a good idea. I would like us to deliver on our crosswalk compliance campaign, which continues to be a major problem. I'm just going to step off that soapbox.

What I would throw at you is, let's come up with an ordinance and bring up the old ordinance. We all get this where we put an ordinance in. And a year later, we've forgotten about it because we passed it.

I never forgot about it. I know. I never forgot about it. I kept asking for updates over and over and over and over again. And I have them in writing.

Well, we have our current... interim director of public works here now, I think it's important for us to make sure they're accountable. And so, sir, do you have an update? What was it, $500,000? There is, and we still haven't seen

the report on the countermeasures, the Vision Zero countermeasures that was part of that ordinance. It was a two-part, $500,000 for Vision Zero countermeasures on our top whatever streets and intersections, and then also to conduct a crosswalk compliance campaign, $500,000 total. I know that there was, we amended a contract with Burns and McDonald to the contract that was to update the traffic operations manual or the major streets plan. They added on the additional scope through a contract amendment to do the countermeasures. I KNOW THAT THAT WORK HAS PARTIALLY BEEN DONE, BUT IT'S NEVER BEEN PRESENTED TO ME OR AS FAR AS I KNOW ANY OTHER CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT IS. THEN I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT NOTHING HAS HAPPENED WITH THE THERE'S NEVER A MARKETING FIRM ENGAGED OR ANYTHING ON THE CROSSWALK COMPLIANCE. THERE WAS NEVER AN AGREEMENT or an MOU with Mid-America Regional Council to partner with them on their crosswalk compliance program. So that's the update that I have. I just quit asking because I never got an answer.

Well, we have the finance department here, and we have Public Works here. I would charge them with bringing back to us where that money is, where that ordinance stands, and if it's been spent somewhere else, I'd like to know that. If it's just sitting there, that's kind of ridiculous, too. So I can only ask that we get updated on those two things.

Yep. And I'll definitely reach out to staff for an update on that. I do know they were working with Mid-America Regional Council on the Safe Across, which is the crosswalk education portion of it. So I've not seen an update on it since my time as interim director. But I'll definitely reach out to staff on that and the countermeasures. Okay.

Yes. Just to add to this, I think we're talking about two different things, too, and what Bike Walk is trying to lead is an educational campaign around safety, right, and suggested safety, and then what we're talking about is an educational campaign around compliance. So you've got materials kind of in the bag, ready to go, but that's all about education about safety and educating parents, but they still have, like, their own decisions and abilities on, you know, what their child's capable of or what they're not capable of and kind of educating their child and teaching their child and all of that on these devices. But that's all in good and great. But if we don't know what the laws are within Kansas City, once we finally pass whatever this is going to be, then we have to do another educational campaign around compliance and how that is going to be and then what those measures and what those penalties are going to be. And I think that we're talking about kind of What could be altogether one similar campaign, but not the same?

The guide does include the rules and regulations of both Missouri and Kansas at a state level. So that's what we pulled the regulations from. And we mentioned them in our guide. And then this model legislation for our metropolitan area took into account the state level rules and regulations. So that can be conductive to the compliance and enforcement portion of it. So it is a full packet. I think it is a full packet that has all the information required for education for safety and for use for enforcement based on state level regulations and because it is our digital version it is very easy for us to update it whereas it reflects any local ordinance that are passed and i uh I am 100% sure I'm going to say there are QR codes in our booklet based on that idea that every time a regulation is changed or modified, these QR codes are taking you to this landing page that has the most updated information rather than having a print version that gets outdated too quickly. And we made sure to pay the premium points. price for the qr code so that they don't expire because it happens sometimes we are making sure that these qr codes will not expire and that the signing page gets updated with any updated regulation on a local level or on a state federal hopefully maybe one day because there is a federal law sitting in congress that would regulate all of these things we're discussing right now on a local level but it is not has not been brought up for discussion

That's good to know, because you're a regional organization, and so we're trying to work regionally with Mid-America Regional Council to try to regulate some of these laws and compliance, because right now Kansas City is different than Riverside. That's different than North Kansas City. That's different than Smithville. That's different than Johnson County. So we're trying to all look right now at kind of uniform, making a uniform legislation. So that's why I'm I don't want people to get confused over what you're trying to do with what we're trying to do as an educational campaign.

We probably let you finish your whole question still.

I mean, we've gone through most of it, but I'll keep going.

Thank you very much for giving us your input.

Thank you, Ryan. So one thing I did want to highlight, and this is what Councilman Duncan brought to your attention at the beginning of the presentation, is that we did add language in that if someone tampers with an e-bike, so kind of like jailbreak, say, their bike and the speed, it's automatically classified as an electric motorcycle, which then kicks in all those requirements of registration, license, insurance, so on and so forth. And then again, a lot of this we've kind of already covered, but the gap in the original ordinance was e-bikes were covered, but some of these higher speed electric motorcycles, scooters were not. We're now looking at if they're modified e-bikes, they're now classified as that electric motorcycle, and then carry the full rights and duties, including those licensing requirements. And again, kind of getting at that, minimizing youth on the high speed devices, which we had a lengthy discussion about. And then, yeah, public education component. So looking at, you know, the intent to distribute the safety education materials. The city manager is directed to coordinate with local organizations. Obviously, Bike Walk KC has been a partner, but we didn't want to limit it just to them. So we kept the language as just kind of local organizations. And thinking, you know, how we can access parents and youth in community spaces. So schools, libraries, community centers, other public facilities, so on. And I do think, Councilman Robinson, to your point about the funding, that is something worth considering. And I think that if maybe our Director of Finance is here, he could share information on, I know that you and I actually both in recent ordinances put in that language of pending quarter one budget cleanup funds remaining in X, Y, and Z fund could be used. maybe there's a space for us to look at. I know, again, development services, if there's remaining funds on the quarterly one cleanup, we could allocate some of those dollars here, but kind of have it pending availability, and then we could go from there. And that might be kind of a middle ground.

Do we have the capacity to force, however you want to say it, shops that sell any of these to place... our laws in their stores so that it's available for people to walk in to buy a bike. There is a source that tells them what they can legally do with that.

Good question. I might look to our assistant city attorney. I think that would maybe be a regulated industries type, well, maybe not regulated industries, but a business licensee. I'm not completely sure.

I think what you're asking is analogous to recent amendments to the towing regulations that now currently do require the posting of certain regulations at the facilities. You're asking a similar question. While the facts aren't analogous, we have to make a specific determination on this issue, but I think it would be analogous to that type of regulation that's included there. So it's possible to do that? It's something worth looking at. We'd want to look into more detail, but I would just note that that is analogous to what we've done with tar regulations, yes.

My gut, I don't have data on this, but most of the e-bikes and scooters that are the problematic ones are probably being purchased online because most of the time what you're seeing in shops are type one and type two, maybe some type threes, but those are going to be adult size. You're not going to see any of the kids size. But I think they're, you know, I used to work in bike shops, so I think that there's definitely a willingness, usually, of bike shop management to participate in something like this if it was voluntary. I wouldn't want to add extra burden to a shop, though, just simply because we're losing bike shops fairly regularly because of online shopping. That's just my concern is maybe if it was voluntary, I think you would have a lot of participation from bike shops. And also because they recognize that they're not the ones who are selling devices that are leading kids into riding really fast. Also, they're often jailbroken. There's a whole online culture of young kids reprogramming the computers on these bikes to allow them to go, basically remove the governor, like we used to do with our cars back in the day when you could just remove the governor.

Yes, sir. It doesn't matter.

Can we go back to Section 70-707, the F? I want to dig in a little bit more. I'm sympathetic to Councilman Robinson. This is prohibiting folks 12 years and younger to operate any e-bike at all. I'm sympathetic to Councilman Robinson's point that this could be used as just another way to over-police specifically black and brown kids. Regular bicycles can reach up to 20 miles an hour pretty easily. Anyway, I'm wondering if we're maybe going overboard on prohibiting kids from using e-bikes at all.

I live in a pretty white neighborhood, and those kids are worse probably than in many neighborhoods. And I understand your concept. I mean, this is a citywide problem.

Yeah, but I think that there's a nuance there. The reason why the prosecutor decided to stop prosecuting low-level drug crimes is because while drugs across the board were at the same levels, but people in black and brown communities were being prosecuted at a higher level. So this isn't about who's doing what.

It's about who's doing what.

No, it's not about it because your comment is it's happening everywhere. So everyone's doing it. So it's not about who everyone that's doing it. It's about those who live in predominantly black and brown communities who are being penalized more than those who live in homogenous white communities. So that's what this is about. So that's why we need to make sure that that we front load public education versus requiring the police do this because they should be there for enforcement, not the education component, because that helps to keep everyone safe.

Oh, I don't disagree with that. But I mean, I'm you're saying We already talked about education as being one of the most important components on this, because we don't want kids to get caught off guard not knowing, parents to get caught off guard not knowing that we are putting impediments to these kids doing this. I understand what you're saying, but I don't want to not do something We have to find the main root of the problem, and the main root of the problem is 12 year olds and 13 year olds, 14 year olds, these kids, whether they're white or black, are doing things because either their parents are letting them or they're sneaking around their parents. But at the end of the day, the neighborhoods are the ones that are causing the backlash of, hey, this isn't right. These kids are driving around, they're gonna get hurt. Everyone in my neighborhood has said, one of these days a kid is gonna get hit because he comes around, he's going 25 miles an hour and he's coming around a bend and somebody's gonna hit him and then that's when all of us feel bad because some kids shouldn't be doing that in the first place.

Absolutely. And we agree with that. There's a nuance that as policymakers we have to be aware of. And that is how consequences and penalties are doled out based off of your zip code, based off of your skin color. And so we just need to be doing everything on the front end to make sure that we're not, you know, coming from a place of you know, we just are doing this for the benefit of everybody. Yes, we are, but your intent and your impact could be two different things. And oftentimes when laws are on the books and there's poor rollout, there's poor education, people in vulnerable communities get penalized more. And so that's what I'm trying to prevent from a policy perspective. And I believe that we should not be implementing this until we have 120-day education rollout of this, that there's a contractor selected to help us with the marketing and promotion. of this public education component and that we have some educated and professionalized answers as to what does it mean to educate kids and families all over the city, regardless of where they're from. But how do we educate them about these rule changes? and about these consequences. I think that that is paramount. If we say that it's important, then we have to invest in it, we have to make sure the staff is doing the right thing, and it needs to be codified in the ordinance. And maybe that's something also, you know, we should be doing with all ordinances before we say that this law is a thing, that we do our job as a city to educate.

Yeah, I wouldn't disagree with you at all on that. I would argue that maybe the first 120 days, the new ordinance is in place, but with a declaration that no tickets be giving out during that time because we're educating during that time, but getting people used to the new law.

Well, and I just think that that also puts an over-dependency on KCPD. And I'm not... This is not... complaint about KCPD this is just you know the funky facts like if you're in a community more these are some of the outcomes and why should we be you know saying the KCPD well you know this is how we want it to be enforced we want you to do education first we want you to wait 120 days. Like, I think that that adds a level of complexity that we shouldn't be, you know, saddening the KCPD.

Can we ask Captain Otis, while you ask that question, can we ask Captain Otis maybe to come up here and speak to KCPD enforcement of a law like this? All right.

He's like, you put me, I'm here.

I'm here resting.

I didn't go. Can I add something? And bear with me here. There's a scene in the movie Home Alone when Kevin McAllister is walking back from the grocery store, which I love this scene because he goes to the grocery store on his own and he's only like 12 years old or something. He's walking back and the two bad guys are in a van. They're pulling out of a driveway and they almost hit him. He's on the sidewalk. They then turn to him and say, watch out. You need to watch where you're going. And that is a common thing that happens where they were in the wrong. Like it's their responsibility if they're about to enter a sidewalk in a vehicle, it is their responsibility to watch for pedestrians on that sidewalk. That is the law. However, it is very common to do that, especially to kids, but even adults. It happens to me sometimes where walking on the sidewalk and walking through a crosswalk and a driver assumes that they're in the right because they're in the big vehicle, you need to get the heck out of my way. And that scene in Home Alone reminds me of this all the time. And so my concern about this rule is about THIS WHOLE THING IS THAT IT COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT ON GETTING AROUND THE CITY WITHOUT THE NEED OF A CAR, BUT ESPECIALLY TARGETING KIDS WHO DON'T NECESSARILY REALLY KNOW ALL ABOUT THE LAW, AND THEY'RE OFTEN PUT IN A POSITION OF SORT OF DEFENSIVENESS, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT IN THE WRONG IN SOME OF THESE CASES. I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THAT, AND I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT ADDING MORE REGULATIONS TO SOMETHING THAT I'm still unclear as to whether the tragedies that we've had happen regarding e-bikes, have those all been the fault of the operator of the e-bike? Or is it just simply that this is a thing that seems dangerous to me, I need to be able to drive, I can drive safely in my vehicle, but I don't want to be bothered by the danger of other people existing outside of my vehicle. I'm protected in this cage, you're not, so you need to get the heck out of the way. And sometimes I feel that ordinances like these, regulations of regulating people moving about their city without the safety of a steel cage, are often put in this position of defensiveness because it's just get the heck out of the way. I understand that like... All of our traffic laws still are what they are, and they're really, I'm afforded rights to walk and bike, but it's not always, officers don't always know those laws, but especially the people who are participating and moving around, driving, walking, biking, don't always know those rules either. And so I just want to be careful not to create a solution to a problem that, doesn't necessarily exist or a problem or a solution that is the wrong solution to the problem that does exist. And then on top of that, anytime you add a regulation, especially to something where people are exposed, you can see the color of their skin because they're out walking or biking, and it makes them particularly vulnerable to over-policing or profiling in this case. We have undone laws like jaywalking, which I'm very proud that the city still remains one of the leaders on that, precisely because it's often used as pretext to pull someone over. It's well documented that licensing requirements of bicycles is used often as a tool to pull people over, use pretext for policing people of color. So I just, I do think that Anytime we add new things like this, it does come with those potential pitfalls. I would be curious if this actually, overall, I'm just curious if this is actually the solution to the problem that we're trying to solve. So I'll just leave it at that.

Um, I would, I would just say, look, I, we, there's a hundred reasons not to do it and there's a hundred reasons to do this. Um, I don't know what all the nuances are that make it, um, good or bad because there is, there is, but I do know that at the end of the day we're trying to protect I mean, I know cars are always an issue, but we got them in Kansas City, and we're going to have them for the rest of my life in Kansas City, and maybe you'll have flying cars by the time you guys are my age. But I think we're just trying to solve a problem here, and I agree there's a lot of ways to look at how to solve this problem, but just not doing it for other reasons is not the way to go. That's just what I think.

Yeah, and I think that, you know, the prohibiting... kids under the age of 16 from operating a motor vehicle that goes beyond 20 miles an hour just seems like common sense to me.

Yeah, absolutely.

And, you know, I do have concerns and want to hear from Captain about, you know, what does it look like to enforce, you know, Section F that states that no person under the age of 12 shall operate a micro-mobility device with a maximum operating speed of 20 miles an hour. or less, which is essentially all of the micro mobility devices. I'm curious in what that actually looks like. Yes, because in Brookside, we have them all the time. We have kids popping wheelies and going more than 20 miles an hour on 63rd Street, and it's incredibly dangerous for everyone. And I just saw two wrecks on 63rd and Brookside the other day, and it happens all the time. And you're right. And they have a steel cage. And drivers are not driving aware. I almost got hit on 71 this morning because someone had a phone directly in their face. And so, you know, I think when you're going beyond 20 miles an hour and you don't have a steel cage around you, then we should be taking steps to ensure that the person who is operating that has the training, has the safety knowledge, and under 16 you don't. There was a day when driving a motorcycle you didn't have to have a helmet.

I think still don't you?

You don't anymore.

It was a great walk.

I mean, I never saw the problem.

Officer, we'd love to hear your input.

All right. Captain Maurice Otis, Kansas City, Missouri Police Department. This is basically would just be a traffic offense. So a ticket will be issued if it's a minor driving and they cannot drive the vehicle. because they're under the age of 16, that person would just be held there at the scene until their parents can come and get them. Kind of like how we'll do the youth at the plaza. Officers will sit there and have a responsible guardian actually respond out to come and grab the kid. Likely that vehicle would be taken away, will be seized at the scene, towed away until they can go and recover it.

And is most of these stops, are they generally within the neighborhood that the young kids live in? We don't have, we're not enforcing that currently, right?

We have a regulation. I, you know, As a parent of a 12-year-old, you know, I appreciate that. And I believe if it's not safe to drive, then it's not safe for a 12-year-old to drive. It's like that. But I do believe that there should be the adequate education and the adequate folks to be delivering that education. And if it's unsafe, it's unsafe. And we should be protecting residents, children, adults from things that are unsafe. That's why we have seatbelts and that's why we regulate now. We have consequences if you don't. where you see, Bill, because if you don't, then tragedy is more likely to occur. So I don't, yeah.

I think at this point, I think there's enough questions here. I'd like to hold this and have you kind of listen to everything we've been talking about and come back to us with maybe some clarifications on all the points we've made. Would everybody agree with that?

I don't have an objection. And we sent this also to the Matthew Muckenthaler who's the staff advisor for the multimodal committee to review this as well. Give them an opportunity to look at this and I'll give them some time to look at it as well.

Okay, that's good.

You okay with that? Eric?

Yeah. You okay?

Yes. You okay? Yeah, I just.

All right.

We will hold this for one week or two. You need, what would you recommend?

I mean, I think that the main things are looking for the funding components and getting a better estimate of what a robust marketing campaign might require, identifying the funding locations for those. I do want to look into the opportunity for the business requirements and posting, and if that would do kind of an undue burden to Councilman Bunch's point, kind of per your question, Councilman O'Neill, looking at kind of the delay period, if it makes sense to implement right away versus have like a kind of delayed effective date for the education. And then comparing the 12-year-old to 16. I mean, I think that, again, I think that I'm happy to do some more research on that. Maybe that can give us a more informed decision. I think it's going to be a policy decision of what our preference is and what we feel is most feasible. But I think throughout the next week, I could compile some more research and resources to maybe just inform that decision a little bit better. So you think in two weeks, four weeks? What do you think? Yeah. I mean, one to two weeks is probably fine. Let's do two weeks.

And may I just make one more, just clarifying one of the next steps that you shared, and that is really differentiating the research between the 16 and the 12-year-old. Yes. So that we, you know, just again, following the science.

And I would also add that I think one of our, I think we all agree that this should have a marketing component to it. And if you could find out the cost associated with that, so you can bring us back something that has a real fiscal note attached to it.

And I would love to get we talked about this a lot in this committee as it relates to speeding enforcement already. So just to look back as to how we're doing as a city as it relates to speeding enforcement and which I've seen influx. Thank you, KCPD, of folks being held accountable for their high rate of speeds. But it would be helpful to kind of get that information that we would know, like what the enforcement will look like.

For current speed enforcement right now?

Yes, current speed enforcement. And then we definitely need an update on the $500,000 for the crosswalk and the other... I think I got it all.

I'll make sure to follow up with each of you. And of course, if anything comes up in the meantime, happy to add that to my list. But I look forward to sharing those updates in two weeks.

Appreciate it, Catherine. Are you giving the other one? I am. You're not done with me yet.

Thank you.

Let's do the next one then. We're going to hold that. Who do I tell that to? Clerks? Yes, two weeks. Please read the ordinance.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

No, you're all right.

Is that July 28?

Ms. 260618, directing the city manager to enter contract negotiations with United Way of Greater Kansas City for administration of expanded fountain card program, a reloadable prepaid debit card and municipal identity platform and authorization for the United Way to convene the necessary partnership partner organization to implement the program and directing the city manager to report back to the council within 90 days.

Good morning, Chair, members of the committee, and staff. Catherine Nace with the mayor's office. And I'll be presenting on resolution 260618. It's a fairly straightforward resolution looking at our current fountain card program with United Way as a partner and administrator of that program. But first, I wanted to start with some news you probably saw on your slides. I was very excited to hear that currently we have over 19,000 fountain cards issued from our health department since the inception of the program. in January 2024, which in my perspective is a great sign of showing community members wanting to get their own municipal ID and being able to use that in a variety of ways, which kind of spears into how can we make that ID much more useful, kind of have robust access and a kind of central component for all residents. So just, yeah, quick little background. Our office has been investigating, looking into researching other cities that have successful models and using municipal ID cards for more broad uses, access to resident services, payment cards, things of that nature. And as we think about all of our different external facing platforms for residents, how can we have the fountain card be a key component of kind of a one-stop shop of like a resident centered platform that can support water billing. I know we've talked about the housing vouchers, transit funds, obviously for KCATA has been a big conversation lately, but having this kind of be an opportunity for all residents to have that in one location. So the resolution, again, is fairly straightforward. Directs the city manager to begin negotiations with United Way of Greater Kansas City, which we have had ongoing conversations with them. They are currently administering the free fare passes across the region for KCATA rides. They are also... We're having conversations with them as the administrator for the municipal housing vouchers. We also know that they have their own prepaid debit card program. So they have the experience in operating a program such as this. And we find them to be a good, they could be a good partner in expanding our fountain card program beyond what it currently is. So the next section just looks at who should really be involved and at the table. This is different partner organizations. So also thinking about the health department, water department, thinking about all the different banking and platform institutions that would need to be a part of kind of the behind the scenes tech components of it. And then thinking about the community service providers that would actually be delivering a lot of the benefits and having their say and ability to use it for their clientele. So looking at some of the program objectives, and this is kind of in a concrete way, thinking about the physical and digital card. So having the found card, but also kind of having a digital card that could be used from your phone wallet, should you not want to have the physical card, but making sure that it can function as a reloadable prepaid debit card. Then looking at how different partners, the city, community partners can push funds onto those cards. So thinking our different community partners that are giving different vouchers to our residents or the cities trying to give funds for bus passes, anything like that, like how do we access the card and have the opportunity to push those funds onto the card? Again, the kind of the nitty gritty technical components, you know, having a software that also is able to do all of these things and really creating that single point of contact. I know Councilman Rogers and Councilman Patterson-Hasley put forward a resolution a while ago looking at all of the different resident platforms. I think the idea here would be kind of in conjunction with that is how can we make this a single point sign on to city services in general. you have to go to this website for your water bill, you have to go this site to get your health department records, you have to go to this, you know, and then there's a bunch of different logins, access points, so how can we kind of use this as functional prepaid debit card, municipal ID, and access to different city services. And then one thing, too, that I want to give a lot of credit to my colleague Darius Diamond, who is out on parental leave, but did a lot of great background research on the feasibility, comparing, and And one thing that he looked into is how we as a city could capture different transaction fees or part of a transaction fee based on the partner that we choose as far as our banking institution. And that can create revenue to kind of self-sustain the program. And there are certain banking institutions he's had conversations with that are open to that. So this kind of resolution is wanting to more formally get those conversations going. But those are kind of the folks that we would want to have engaged in some of our objectives here. And then section four is just reporting back. So this is kind of just a call to action, a charge for city manager to start looking into this, given the objectives, given the background, and then share back with city council what kind of those negotiations look like, who all they've talked to, what they've established, and any recommendations for future actions or required appropriations once that has been determined. I can answer any questions.

I would just quickly, this doesn't have a fiscal note attached to it. Are we intending on paying this out of ATA budget? Is this going to be an additional charge to the city?

To be determined. I think that's part of the negotiating fees. The funds that we would be appropriating for free fare or for the implementation of fountain cards would probably be a consideration in the conversation, but nothing has been determined in that.

Okay. And my understanding is that the ATA had purchased a specific platform or application that doesn't seem to match what we're trying to do on the fountain cards.

That is my understanding as well. I think the idea here is a collaboration between KCATA and United Way in trying to find the best administrative route given different company's feasibility and existing infrastructure. I mean, we actually have a representative here from United Way if we have any questions more specifically about their capabilities and capacity. But yeah, the idea would be, you know, that's a part of convening those specific partners is how we're bringing all the people that are kind of touching our current existing fountain cart efforts to the table. And because we know United Way has capacity to kind of be behind the scenes administrator, How can they play that role and then still have, you know, maybe KCATA still referring people or, you know, physically handing out the cards. People are still going to go to the health department and get the card, but how do we have kind of a one-stop shop background administrator?

This is a three-way negotiation, right? ATA, city, and...

Yeah, you could you I mean you could put it that way I mean this this resolution specifically is Formalizing a relationship with United Way in particular knowing that they're going to be other partners that need to conversation to us. Yes Yes, that's yeah the the report back specifically states that we would need guidance on what any future appropriation needed would be So just to be clear

What is the fountain card capable of doing right now? Is it just a card that acts as a municipal ID but it doesn't have a chip or anything in it, correct?

Yep, it's solely a card with their ID picture on it.

And so this would explore with United Way and how we can actually make a more functional card that could collaborate with the KCATA tap system or, because KCATA straight up said in their last presentation during finance that they're not purchasing different tap machines and that the tap machines that they have are the ones they're going to keep.

But it's money. It's going to be like a debit card. So they're going to pay, they're going to tap it like somebody would tap a debit card. That's the resolution.

So we're going to ensure that we have something that works with all of these things, right?

Correct. That's the goal. Yeah. Yeah.

Well, I don't, okay.

Do you want to?

I don't know. Yes, so KCATA, I think, is a part of the conversation. But when you mentioned the water department, for example, or when people go and pay $10 for their birth certificate, things of that nature. So they will have revenue to do these things. I'm more interested in... the comprehensive nature of all city services so that we don't leave anyone out like so for example with our LIHEAP dollars that we talked about a lot in this committee where we're utilizing federal dollars as well as revenue from the fees that you pay late payment fees for your water bill those dollars are going to help folks who can't afford to pay for their water. So there's a process for that in order for people to access those funds to help them to pay for their water bill. I would be interested in knowing how this card is going to... What's the process or the workflow that will allow those dollars to be available to that resident through using this card?

Absolutely. I mean, that's a great example of kind of what we would be hoping to accomplish with it. So in theory... it would, the city would be able to have access to push funds, whether that's like to United Way and they're the kind of card administrator and can then reload it onto the card or we push, because it's reloadable, depending on where that access point is, funds could be pushed to it. So the idea would be that then the water department could push these funds to the card because we have their fountain ID number and we have all the information and then they can pay that way.

So can we, in section D under, or section three, item D, can we talk about a more comprehensive report to create this single sign-on access for city services with some specificity around city fees and city payments? So it would be interesting if every department If we looked at every department and how this will work, if a resident had a fountain card and they wanted to use the bus or they wanted to pay for their water bill or they have a fee that they have to pay the health department. I don't know what other fees are there, but we should be comprehensive. The other thing that we oftentimes forget, which was extremely helpful to the third district, and that is to have a focus group with individuals who have utilized these services so that we don't have blind spots. I'm aware that United Way has, they already have these platforms available where they're providing these types of not, I don't know what the non-progressive term is, but when you look at basic income,

universal basic income those types of things but you know making sure people that have that are necessary they have a model to help meet those absolutely and that yeah that's a great idea actually because that's the whole goal here is meeting those gaps and specifically looking at also our community members that are underbanked or unbanked and making sure that this is useful in that way so yeah so it

we need to know like who's receiving those services, who would receive these services. United Way works well with a lot of agencies, but I don't believe 100% of social service agencies are working through United Way. So just ensuring that we have those gaps being met in the end user, we're designing it for the end user. And we're not allowing social service agencies that are very well-meaning but oftentimes don't understand on the ground what people go through when they're using these types of wonderful tools. if we can add a section about, you know, hosting a focus group within users to help to build and design this system.

I have a question, your thought there. I'm not sure when you say utilizing the card for paying other services. I'm not sure how you mix getting on a bus and charging and charging the city for that bus ride versus taking that same card and applying it to pay your water bill. I guess I'm Sure. Since we're giving them, we're not really giving anybody any money. We're actually putting money on their card so they can have free bus service. We're certainly, I mean, we're not really giving money for water service. We're not giving money for public, you know, whatever. I guess that's my confusion on you.

I think the idea would be that there's multiple access points. So if the, this, if the city is providing funds for the bus passes, that's one way to use it. And then there's also, you know, another access point. And that's kind of why the central administrator I think is important because say, um, journey to new life wants to provide funds for all of their residents and clients. Ideally, it would be they could they could then also push funds on there or, you know, any any organization that's wanting to provide some kind of service.

Different.

Correct. Yeah, that that would be the idea. And so but we need kind of that central point, which is where United Way would come in.

A physical and digital card functioning as a reloadable prepaid debit card. Correct. So that allows you to use it for different things. But once we have, you know, I'm pretty sure there's going to be some things in place where, you know, if... someone is giving them money for their water payment, how that actually is used for that particular purpose. Um, but I just, after all those situations are, all of those scenarios are, are about out, uh, walking through how that impacts the end user, I think is critical. I don't know if 90 days is going to be enough time to really work out all of the details, but, um, You know, that's just. If you feel like you can get all those things done and it works well and we don't continue to burden people with faulty systems, then more power to you. And that's wonderful and great. I would caution against it. But I did have a question about the KCATA and funds. I want to make sure that the funds that we allocated last week are not impacted by this, so people aren't on hold.

It wouldn't be. Yeah, this would be, I mean, similar goals, but separate. Separate. I think separate. Yeah, because, I mean, that ideally would be, those ones would be dispersed, I think, as soon as possible is what we would ideally like to see, you know, for the free fair. This would be kind of a separate, adjacent thing.

parallel journey because my friend whom i love and adore uh my colleague sitting next to me he was very nice about his money not being spent if people are in line waiting on those bus passes waiting on that's going to be a problem in a circumstance yeah that was a yeah that was a now problem need to solve now this is a now with a sense of urgency but not the same type of

Catherine, currently those fountain cards are not eligible for free bus service, correct? Right.

It's just a card with their picture and their name and information. Councilwoman?

I guess I just for further clarity have a question versus having a prepaid debit card as a fountain card versus having a bus pass. So I guess that's where I'm confused on where the, are we loading funds onto this fountain card and then they're paying as they go or is it going to be? a bus pass that's green lighted for 30 days, 60 days, and they can just, I think both, both options would still be available.

I think ideally it would, we would transition to the fountain card usage just to have kind of widespread use. Um, but the, you know, the KCOTA is always going to still have to have actual bus passes. So those, those wouldn't become obsolete with us.

I understand that, but using the, the fountain card as the bus pass.

Correct.

Why are we, I guess, using it as a prepaid debit card, like putting funds onto that to ride the bus versus just using it as a

bus pass that's green lighted for 30 days because the system won't allow them it's 12 million dollar investment for them to allow the fountain card to be integrated with the bus pass system so the prepaid debit card just acts like a regular card so that works with the system but the fountain card does not work for a bus pass Okay, that's right. They can buy a bus pass with the fountain pen.

Or use it directly on the bus. To your point, it gets kind of in the weeds on what that money can be used for or not.

Once you get out of just one one deposit, you know, coming in from the, from us or whomever that puts, goes onto the, goes onto the debit card, but there's four other uses you could use that money that will come in from different services. That would seem to, that's mixing monies that kind of, how do you determine what you spend?

You've got a lot of thoughts. You're giving me a long to-do list. No, I think that's the whole point, too, of starting the conversation, I think, with United Way. And that's ultimately what this is.

And at the end of the day, we're just authorizing the city manager to go in and make these negotiations.

Exactly.

And then you'll come back with a plan.

And then come back with, this is how we're thinking about it.

Wouldn't it be less expensive to just get new fountain cards that are compatible with the ATAs?

That's what this would do.

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. That's the problem that this helps us all. You can ask no more questions.

I won't ask anymore. It'll be like a debit card.

It'll be like a debit card. I wish I should have put a picture on here, but it would be like a debit card and then kind of like imagine kind of like a Costco card where it has your picture and your information, but a little more of a thorough ID, but has like the chip and the debit card capabilities. Gotcha. And Councilman Robinson, to your point on the committee sub, I've drafted a final sentence in section two that would say partner, because that's the one that contemplates coordination. Partner coordination shall include hosting a focus group for end use design input. Okay, and then in section 3D, do the kind of the municipal identity profile serving as foundation for accessing the services, including but not limited to city department fees and payments. Does that help get it out more comprehensively?

Yeah, can you write the word? I think it's, can you actually add it where it says a municipal identity profile.

For comprehensive single sign-on?

Yes, for a comprehensive single sign-on.

And then I'll add the including but not limited to just so it's explicitly called out.

And a report from every department on how this could be utilized would be great. That way we know we don't miss anybody.

Okay. Yeah, I think that that would be part of section four.

I would entertain a motion.

I move that resolution, committee substitute, thank you for resolution 250618, be reported out of committee with a recommendation of advance and due pass.

Any public testimony? I don't think there's a committee substitute for this.

The committee substitute was for the bike. There's no committee substitute for the bike. Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. Yes, yes, yes. What we just talked through. Oh, gosh. Okay. I've been up here too long. Sorry. Ignore me.

Andrew's got it. That's all that matters.

Do you want us to do it again after public testimony? Are we good? Just make it clean. Yeah. Go ahead and ask for public testimony.

Any public testimony?

No public testimony.

I would entertain a motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that committee substitute for resolution number 260618 be recorded out of committee with recommendation of advance to be passed.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Before we go, we have a semiannual docket in front of us. All we're doing is moving. Oh, you're not doing these two ordinances? I thought those are hold.

Both of them?

Are they?

Yeah. You didn't announce that. Oh, I'm sorry.

I didn't announce that. Let me announce that. We are holding for... Let's see. Thank you. Two weeks, we are holding 535, 20535, 260535, and we're holding off docket 260602. Any questions on that? If not, I would entertain a motion to pass the semiannual docket.

All right. I move that we, let's see, is this on here? Is this one of these things with the actual... Are we just passing the semi-annual docket?

The motion would be to release those ordinances identified to full council.

Okay, so I move that we release the ordinances identified for transportation infrastructure and operations committee from the semi-annual docket.

Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Ordinance passes. Luckily, I won't get any more mean text from our esteemed financial committee member. I didn't even know you could put words like that in a text.

Oh.