►
From YouTube: Boise City Council - Evening Session
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
A
E
F
E
A
Thank
you.
Next
up,
we
have
the
consent
agenda
agenda.
Excuse
me,
all
items
with
an
asterisk
are
considered
to
be
routine
by
the
council
and
will
be
enacted
by
one
motion.
No
separate
discussion
on
these
items.
Unless
a
council,
member
or
citizen
still
requests,
in
which
case
the
item
will
be
moved
removed
from
the
general
order
business
and
consider
it
in
its
normal
sequence,.
F
Madame
mayor,
yes,
I
have
one
item
that
I'd
like
to
call
up
it's
resolution:
204-23
it's
for
physical
health,
Management
Services.
This
facility
is,
in
my
district
I've,
toured
it
before
it's
phenomenal.
What
it
does
for
our
Public
Safety
folks
and
I'm
just
really
glad
that
they
continue
to
serve
our
employees.
A
E
A
If
I
am
reading
this
agenda
right,
we
have
no
ordinances,
so
we're
gonna
move
in.
We
have
no
unfinished
business,
so
we'll
move
into
new
business.
The
purchasing
protest,
so
RFP
23-78
are
stationless,
shared
Mobility
Services,
we'll
have
see
on
here
Bree,
but
I,
don't
see
Brie
in
person.
A
Okay,
all
right!
So
we've
got
a
couple
folks
from
our
office,
Brie
brush
or
from
the
city
Missy.
Is
it
growth
house,
okay,
good,
our
purchasing
manager
and
Tessa
grigor
from
our
mobility
and
Public
Safety,
Public,
Services
Division,
the
manager
of
that
and
then
Brie
brush,
is
here
now
from
the
mayor's
office?
Well,
so
we'll
hear
from
the
city
and
then
we'll
hear
from
the
protester
bird
all
right
Birds
over
here
and
then
we
have
an
intervening
party
Neutron
Holdings.
A
Is
that
lime,
okay,
great
and
then
a
rebuttal
from
bird
at
the
end?
And
then
this
decision
will
be
before
Council
and
so
I'll
start
with
staff
and
then
call
you
guys
up.
You
don't
have
to
remember
that,
but
I
just
wanted
to
walk
through
in
case
people
were
wondering
how
it
works.
H
Mayor
members
of
council,
before
we
begin
tonight's
presentations,
we
respectfully
ask
the
council
to
hold
questions
until
the
end
of
the
appeal
hearing.
My
name
is
Missy
grotehouse
I'm,
the
purchasing
agent
for
the
city
of
Boise
tonight
on
our
agenda.
We
have
an
award
protest
in
our
purchasing
process.
We
allow
our
decisions
to
be
challenged,
and
tonight
we
have
such
an
opportunity.
H
Rfp
23-078
station
list,
shared
Mobility
Services,
was
bid
on
January
11th.
The
city
received
four
proposals.
The
committee
evaluated
those
proposals
shortlisted
the
vendors
down
to
a
pool
of
three
lime,
Spin
and
bird.
The
city
then
requested
and
received
product
demonstration
of
each
firm's
devices.
H
The
proposals
were
evaluated
by
a
committee
made
up
of
members
from
the
city
of
Boise
clerk's
office,
PDS,
mayor's
office,
ccvc
and
BSU
as
you'll
see
further
on
in
the
presentation,
the
committee
consistently
scored
Lyme
the
highest.
The
city
posted
the
intent
to
award
notification
on
February
23rd
on
March,
the
second,
the
city
received.
The
protest
from
Mr
Orr
from
bird
rides,
the
third
ranked
firm
and
after
careful
review,
we
found
that
our
process
and
evaluations
was
sound
and
we
denied
the
protest
in
our
response
letter.
H
We
address
each
of
Mr
Orr's
concerns
and
offered
the
city's
appeal
process.
Should
he
wish
to
escalate
his
case
to
council
for
consideration
this
evening.
Pbs
will
provide
a
project
overview
and
then
we
will
hear
from
bird
the
third
ranked
proposer
and
lime
the
highest
ranked
proposer
at
the
end
of
these
presentations.
Council
will
be
requested
to
make
the
award
decision.
We
ask
that
the
decision
be
based
on
whether
the
RFP
evaluation
committee
exercised
their
discretion
in
this
process
in
an
arbitrary
capricious
or
an
unreasonable
matter.
Thank
you.
I
So
before
Tesla
goes
into
the
specifics
of
the
scores
of
individual
proposers,
I
wanted
to
share
with
you
that
we
first
started
regulating
e-scooters
and
e-bikes
in
2018
and
under
this
current
framework,
we've
licensed
three
vendors
and
we
also
maintain
a
wait
list
should
any
of
our
current
vendors
leave.
Our
market
devices
are
managed
by
the
clerk's
office
through
a
regulatory
framework
that
was
set
up
in
title
III
chapter
14,
that
establishes
a
maximum
number
of
devices,
defines
parking
violations,
a
process
for
abatement
and
Reporting
requirements
for
the
vendors.
I
I
We
issued
an
RFP
consistent
with
our
new
program
goals,
which
I'll
go
into
in
a
moment,
but
we
asked
that
proposers
detail
how
they
would
approach
a
program
for
Boise
with
the
intent
that
we'd
ultimately
enter
a
contract
with
one
proposer
here
on
the
screen.
You'll
see
the
program
goals,
as
stated
in
our
RFP.
We
want
a
program
that
has
devices
regularly
distributed
across
our
city.
We
want
transparent
pricing
with
affordable
options
to
serve
low-income
residents,
and
we
want
to
implement
strategies
that
can
help
us
reduce
single
occupancy
vehicle
trips.
I
B
They
contend,
they
should
have
received
higher
scores
in
different
categories,
based
on
a
singular
strategy
in
some
cases,
for
example,
the
parking
category
they
felt
they
deserved
a
higher
score
due
to
their
visual
parking
system
technology.
In
the
parking
section,
respondents
were
asked
to
answer
seven
different
questions,
focusing
on
providing
a
comprehensive
parking
strategy,
including
a
Communications
plan,
how
they
will
incentivize
proper
parking,
an
approach
to
handling
complaints,
so,
while
bird
may
have
demonstrated
Innovative
parking
technology,
technology
was
only
one
piece
of
what
we
were
looking
at.
B
As
far
as
the
evaluation
was
concerned,
the
results
of
the
scoring
are
shown
here.
Bird
was
ranked
third
in
the
combined
scoring
both
initially
and
then,
and
that
was
prior
to
the
interviews
and
the
demos
and
then
third
again
in
the
final
scoring.
In
fact,
their
scores
went
down
in
the
final
scoring,
largely
due
to
the
experience
that
we
had
with
their
devices.
B
I
will
also
note
that
in
the
individual
scores
only
one
of
seven
evaluators
ranked
bird
first,
the
other
six
evaluators
rated
lime
or
spin
number
one
in
eight
of
the
11
scoring
categories,
bird
received
a
score
that
was
lower
than
either
lime
or
spin.
In
the
six
categories
listed
here,
bird
received
the
third
lowest
score,
I
will
touch
on
each
and
where
bird
fell
short
in
comparison
to
lime
and
why?
B
Ultimately,
bird
was
not
ranked
number
one
or
even
number
two
and
why
the
committee
did
not
feel
that
their
proposal
was
the
best
fit
for
the
city
regarding
Fleet
information,
bird
received
a
higher
Fleet
score.
Initially,
however,
following
the
device
demonstration
bird
scores
went
down,
ensuring
devices
are
safe,
accessible
and
comfortable
is
essential
to
the
program,
and
in
our
experience
we
found
that
bikes
were
not
designed
to
fit
all
adult
writers.
B
Birds
Fleet
Distribution
proposal
and
their
strategies
for
promoting
mode
shift
through
the
program
were
not
as
comprehensive
or
data
driven
as
lines.
Lime
include
included
specific
strategies
for
ensuring
first
mile
Last
Mile
connectivity
to
Transit.
They
specified
metrics
for
device
placement
along
Transit
corridors
in
activity
centers
and
in
equity
zones,
and
they
demonstrated
a
commitment
to
other
Innovative
campaigns
and
incentives,
such
as
discounts
on
poor
air
quality
days
and
for
trips
taken
near
bus
stops
as
well
as
promotion
through
their
partnership
with
Uber.
B
We
considered
a
very
we
considered
various
Equity
factors
to
support
a
program
that
is
Affordable
and
accessible
to
all
across
our
community.
Birds
low-income
Access
program
provides
50
percent
discounts
on
rides,
while
lime
committed
to
70
percent
reduced
rates
and
will
make
it
easier
for
people
to
gain
access
to
this
reduced
rate
through
a
direct
enrollment
program
with
Community
organizations.
B
B
We
also
appreciated
Lyme's
assist
program
which
will
provide
adaptive
devices
at
no
charge
to
community
members
on
request
line
presented
a
comprehensive
safety
and
education
plan
and
a
robust
set
of
educational
strategies
and
Technologies
to
promote
safe
riding
and
prevent
unsafe
writing.
A
few
strategies
that
stood
out
above
and
beyond
Bird's
proposal
include.
B
They
will
be
hosting
a
lime
and
learn
Community
Hub,
where
community
members
can
stop
in
for
information
and
for
demos,
helmet
selfie
incentives
through
the
app
noting
both
like
bird
lime
will
be
providing
free
helmets
as
well
cognitive
tests
to
prevent
impaired
riding
at
night
and
app
technology
to
detect
and
ultimately
prevent
sidewalk
riding
in
tandem
riding
regarding
Maintenance,
Cleaning
charging
and
Disposal.
A
key
difference
was
that
lime
scooters
include
swappable
batteries
and
birds.
Do
not.
B
This
reduces
the
need
to
transport
scooters
to
charge
them
also
a
key
consideration
from
an
efficiency,
sustainability
and
safety
standpoint,
and
in
addition,
unlike
bird
limes
device,
maintenance
will
be
performed
exclusively
by
W-2
employees
and
will
be
conducted
in
their
already
established
maintenance
facility
off
of
Cole
Road
in
the
Staffing
section.
Bird,
unlike
Lyme,
did
not
specify
the
exact
number
of
employees
they
will
have
for
the
Boise
program
and
they
propose
a
significant
number
of
devices
which
we
want
to
ensure
includes
appropriate
Staffing
levels.
B
Finally,
Financial
relationship
with
the
city
and
fee
structure,
while
bird
argues,
they
should
have
received
a
higher
score
in
the
section
due
to
their
proposed
Financial
commitment
to
the
city.
A
big
piece
of
what
was
evaluated
in
this
in
this
section
was
fair
pricing,
transparency
and
affordability
for
the
community
bird
presented,
a
fair
range
of
39
cents
to
45
cents
per
minute
for
all
devices,
lime
committed
to
36,
36
cents
per
minute,
with
the
Adaptive
Fleet
being
free
for
all
users.
B
With
this
price
difference,
a
30-minute
ride
could
cost
a
user
almost
three
dollars
more
further.
We
were
impressed
by
lime's
commitment
to
low-income
access
programs
and
the
pricing
structure,
which
they
further
detailed
in
this
section,
along
with
Innovative
programs
and
discounts,
to
further
align
with
the
city's
goals.
B
Birds
protest
includes
three
primary
arguments:
you've
received
this
information
in
your
packets,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
to
focus
on
what
bird
is
contending
as
the
basis
for
this
appeal
and
what
is
before
you
tonight
for
decision
bird
asserted
the
city
scored
the
RFP
proposals
based
on
empty
promises
and
exaggerated
performance
commitments,
and
that
we
did
not
take
into
account
past
performance
first.
The
purpose
of
the
RFP
process
is
to
evaluate
information
provided
during
the
RFP
process
and
not
past
experience
with
vendors.
B
It
is
intentionally
designed
that
way
to
ensure
a
fair
and
unbiased
evaluation
and
selection
process.
Considering
any
previous
experience
outside
of
what
is
included
in
the
proposals
would
create
an
unfair
advantage
to
companies
that
have
operated
in
Boise
and
not
all
respondents
have
had
that
opportunity.
B
Second,
if
bird
had
wanted
to
request
a
modification
to
the
evaluation
process,
they
would
have
needed
to
notify
the
city
no
less
than
three
days
prior
to
the
proposal
opening
date.
This
was
not
done
third
to
birds
argument.
The
limes
proposal
is
full
of
promises
and
exaggerated
performance
commitments.
The
proposals
are
signed
by
the
company
as
verification
of
the
information
they
are
providing
and
acknowledged.
The
Proposal
will
be
used
as
the
basis
for
the
contract
we
established
with
the
selected
vendor
further.
B
Second
bird
identified
several
categories
in
which
they
felt
they
were
miscored
and
re-scored
their
own
proposal.
Concluding
they
should
have
received
the
top
score.
The
reason
we
have
a
diverse
evaluation
committee
and
process
is
to
conduct
a
fair,
reasonable
assessment
of
the
information
that
has
been
presented
during
the
RFP
process.
B
As
mentioned
previously
across
seven
evaluators
bird
was
scored
highest
by
only
one
evaluator
and
collectively
bird
was
squarely
third,
in
both
the
preliminary
and
final
scoring
the
categories
in
which
bird
contended
they
were
miscored
or
listed
here
in
the
interest
of
time.
I
will
not
go
through
all
of
these,
but
we'll
reiterate
a
couple
points
for
the
fleet
bird
contends
because
two
evaluators
assign
bird
scores
that
were
significantly
lower
than
the
other
evaluators
that
the
evaluators
misunderstood
or
misinterpreted
the
scoring
for
this
section.
B
In
fact,
Birds
Fleet
scores
were
lowered
because
of
the
experience
some
evaluators
had
with
their
devices
during
the
demonstration.
If
the
bikes
don't
fit,
that's
a
major
concern
for
ensuring
an
equitable,
safe
and
comfortable
Fleet
for
our
community
in
other
categories,
bird
feels
they
should
have
scored
higher
due
to
one
aspect
in
their
proposal.
In
that
section,
for
example,
parking
technology
or
their
Financial
offer
to
the
city
which
they
felt
was
Superior
to
other
respondents,
as
we
acknowledged
previously,
the
evaluation
committee
was
tasked
with
scoring
each
category
based
on
multiple
factors.
B
Finally,
bird
raised
three
allegations
of
specificities.
They
felt
were
missing
from
limes
proposal:
Upon
Our
internal
review.
We
did
not
find
that
there
were.
There
was
any
evidence
to
support
those
allegations
and
even
if
there
were
the
city
reserves
a
right
to
waive
any
such
irregularities
in
the
proposals
upon
review
of
the
process
and
arguments
presented
by
bird
staff
firmly
believes
that
bird
has
failed
to
demonstrate
that
we
acted
in
an
arbitrary
or
unreasonable
manner,
or
that
we
did
not
appropriately
follow
the
procedures
as
outlined
in
the
RFP
relevant
code
and
as
communicated
to
respondents.
B
D
Memor
I
guess
just
one
clarifying
question,
so
thank
you,
I
believe
staff
presented
to
city
council.
It
was
either
two
or
three
times
and
I
think
the
instructions
that
Council
gave
to
staff
was
to
have
an
RFP
process
for
one
service
provider
because
of
issues
that
we
would
have.
We
had
had
with
multiple
service
providers
and
we've
kind
of
gone
through
a
list
of
those
Reasons,
I'm
and
I.
Think
I'm,
remembering
that
correctly.
I
America
Council
Pro
tem,
we
came
to
you
in
October
of
last
year
and
director
King
presented.
All
of
the
reasons
why
that
we
felt
like
moving
to
one
vendor
was
going
to
be
the
best
approach
for
our
micro
Mobility
Program
in
the
RFP.
We
state
that
our
intent
is
to
select
one
operator,
but
we
reserve
the
right
to
select
two
that
is
standard
language
in
rfps
and
in
the
procurement
process,
so
that
we
have
that
ability
if
it
is
warranted
perfect.
A
J
We
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
Jason
or
corporate
Council
who
was
referenced
earlier
flight
was
delayed
earlier,
he's
actually
enroute,
so
he
may
be
joining
us
either,
while
I'm
speaking
or
during
the
the
rebuttal,
partly.
J
E
J
You
and
then
so.
My
name
is
TJ
Burkle
senior
manager
of
government
Partnerships
for
bird.
This
is
Michael
cavato
director
of
government
Partnerships
for
bird
as
mentioned
Jason
Orr
will
hopefully
be
joining
us
at
some
point
this
evening
and
I
would
also
ask
if
someone
could
could
I'd
like
to
we'd
like
to
reserve
roughly
three
minutes
for
rebuttal,
so
I.
J
Okay,
great
okay,
great
okay!
Thank
you,
madam
mayor.
Thank
you
to
the
council
for
its
careful
consideration
of
this
matter
and
for
your
support
of
micro
mobility
in
Boise.
Over
these
last
several
years,
bird
is
a
long-serving
provider
of
micro,
Mobility
Services
that
has
operated
in
Boise
since
2018..
Again
and
again,
we
have
heard
from
City
staff
and
Community
stakeholders
that
bird
offers
the
best
service
the
most
responsive
to
City
requests
and
is
the
most
engaged
in
the
community.
J
J
The
first
problem
with
the
selection
committee's
decision
is
that
they
didn't
consider
their
own
experience
in
working
with
these
operators.
The
selection
committee
was
made
up
of
people
who
helped
administer
the
city's
original
micro
Mobility
Program.
There
was
a
reason
these
people
were
chosen.
They
had
knowledge
and
expertise
that
could
inform
their
decision.
Making.
J
If
you
look
at
the
RFP
proposals,
you'll
see
that
birds
is
the
only
one
with
photos
of
our
people
holding
events
in
Boise.
That's
because
we're
the
only
operator
that
has
actually
been
present
on
the
ground
in
the
community
organizations
back
this
up.
They
said
they
have
not
seen
the
same
level
of
Engagement
and,
in
some
cases,
no
engagement
whatsoever
from
lime
and
spin.
J
In
light
of
these
differences
in
who
kept
their
promises
over
the
past
several
years,
selection
committee
members
should
have
been
allowed
to
think
critically
about
the
commitments
they
saw
on
paper
and
the
likelihood
of
those
commitments
being
realized.
According
to
the
purchasing
agent,
they
were
not.
What
the
purchasing
agent
has
said
is
that,
if
bird
wanted
past
performance
considered,
we
should
have
objected
to
the
selection
criteria
at
the
start
of
the
RFP
process,
but
nothing
in
the
RFP
suggested
that
the
selection
committee
couldn't
use
their
common
sense
and
personal
experience
in
evaluating
proposals.
J
Frankly,
the
purchasing
agent's
vision
for
the
selection
process,
which
means
accepting
as
true
every
far-fetched
claim
and
everyone's
written
proposal,
is
in
no
way
is
no
way
for
the
city
to
arrive
at
the
best
decision.
It's
a
recipe
for
disappointment
as
the
final
Arbiters
of
disappeal
I
urge
you
all
to
reject
that
vision
and
not
to
repeat
the
mistakes
of
the
selection
committee.
J
As
evidenced
by
the
City's
presentation,
there's
a
lot
of
information
here,
we'll
try
to
touch
on
several
of
the
high
points
in
the
scoring
section.
First,
on
fleet
information,
two
scorers
had
bird
significantly
lower
than
the
others,
one
at
three
out
of
ten
versus
a
high
score
of
10
out
of
10..
This
is
not
a
normal
discrepancy
among
judges.
Imagine
if,
at
the
Olympics,
a
gymnast
did
a
routine
and
three
judges
gave
a
ten
a
nine
and
a
two
something's
wrong
with
either
the
scoring
criteria.
Excuse
me
something's
wrong.
J
With
regard
to
the
city's
critique
that
the
bird
bike
did
not
fit
all
adult
writers,
no
bike
will
fit.
Everyone
having
multiple
bikes
of
different
sizes
would
be
a
benefit
for
the
program,
because
it
would
allow
more
people
to
find
a
good
fit.
What
we've
heard
from
writers
is
that
they
consistently
find
our
vehicles
to
provide
a
more
comfortable
ride
and
time
and
again
in
the
design
of
both
the
bird
3
scooter
and
the
bird
bike.
Bird
is
aired
on
the
side
of
emphasizing
safety
over
everything
else.
J
A
K
A
J
No
we're
not
not
suggesting
that
at
all.
We
think
the
fact
that
there
were
a
couple
that
were
significantly
lower,
that
there
was
more
than
one
that
was
significantly
lower
than
what
the
high
scores
were.
We
think
that's
suggestive
of.
We
didn't
see
that
in
every
section
of
the
RFP,
and
so
we
think
that's
a
suggestion
of
perhaps
was.
A
J
Not
suggesting
that
the
only
reason
for
the
score
was
the
not
being
able
to
fit
on
the
bike
where
I,
so
that
my
the
first
section
was
not
related
to
the
bike
in
particular,
but
I'm
now
responding
to
the
bike
section
from
from
what
the
city
staffer
said.
If
that
makes
sense,
what.
I
Section
was
that
Vladimir,
that
was
in
the
fleet
information
section
where
operators
are
asked
to
describe
their
Fleet
in
detail
and
evaluator.
Three
myself
gave
a
score
before
the
demos
and
then,
after
the
demos,
I
lowered
my
score
to
three
out
of
ten,
because
I'm
five
feet
tall
and
I
couldn't
safely
Mount.
The
bike
I
tried
several
times
thanks.
J
J
In
any
event,
in
the
parking
section,
Bird's
visual
parking
system
far
exceeds
the
accuracy
and
quality
of
any
other
operators
parking
compliance
system.
Bird
has
excelled
in
all
of
these
metrics.
According
to
Boise
staff
and
evaluators
agreed
that
bird
had
Superior,
Communications
and
Outreach.
J
When
the
market
is
excuse
me,
when
scoring
the
marketing
and
promotion
category,
the
EPS
creates
the
strongest
incentives
and
allows
the
most
precise
reporting
of
parking
violations
in
the
section
of
Equitable,
equitable
distribution
and
access
bird
was
the
only
operator
to
offer
free
ride
credits
and
it's
holistic
credit
and
discount
package
met
or
exceeded
the
value
of
other
proposals.
Moreover,
bird
offered
a
comprehensive
marketing
plan
that
would
ensure
qualifying
individuals
actually
took
advantage
of
these
discounts.
J
These
are
all
areas
of
strength
for
bird.
The
city
has
not
explained
how
birds
deployment
plans
are
lacking
and
it
did
not
take
into
account
the
value
of
Free
Ride
credits
in
favoring,
higher
reduced
rates
for
some
users
in
the
marketing
promotion
and
safety,
education,
sections,
marketing
promotion
and
safety.
Education
should
receive
similar
scores
because
they
overlap
greatly
and
involve
many
of
the
same
actions.
Yet
Birds
score
for
safety
and
education
was
low
despite
its
score
for
marketing
and
promotion
being
the
highest
of
all
operators.
J
Birds
steadfast
commitment
to
the
community
should
not
be
irrelevant
cure.
That
is
the
difference
between,
on
the
one
hand,
a
meaningful
promise
and,
on
the
other
hand,
words
on
paper
and
finally,
with
respect
to
the
financial
relationship
with
the
city
and
fee
structure,
bird
unequivocally
offered
the
highest
value
in
financial
program
fees.
We
offered
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
in
the
first
year
and
fifty
thousand
dollars
in
each
year
thereafter,
coupled
with
a
25
cent
per
ride
fee.
J
Let's
see
birds
combined
program
fee
and
revenue
sharing
would
provide
200
to
250
000
each
program
year.
The
next
highest
scored
scoring
offering
was
spends
120
000
per
year.
I
would
note
here
that
lime's
portion
was
redacted,
but
spin
received
the
highest
score
in
this
section,
so
we
don't
know
for
sure,
but
we
can
only
assume
that
spin
had
a
higher
offering
than
lime
in
this
regard.
J
I'll
end
with
this
bird
has
earned
the
opportunity
to
continue
serving
Boise.
The
RFP
makes
clear
that
this
council
is
authorized
to
award
more
than
one
contract,
regardless
of
any
decision
made
by
the
selection
committee
or
purchasing
agent.
We
are
asking
you
to
award
bird
a
contract
as
a
second
operator
in
Boise,
both
the
reward,
our
investments
in
this
community
and
to
ensure
that
the
city
has
a
successful
micro,
Mobility
Program
with
only
one
operator,
City
residents
will
lose
consumer
choice
and
optionality
without
competition.
Lime
is
likely
to
continue
its
lack
of
Engagement
in
Boise.
J
You
can
control
that
risk
by
adding
bird
as
the
second
operator
and
choosing
lime
is
the
only
operator
for
the
city
of
Boise.
The
city
would
be
choosing
the
only
micro
Mobility
operator
that
does
not
belong
to
the
Boise
Metro
Chamber
of
Commerce,
as
well
as
the
operator
with
the
least
amount
of
Engagement
in
the
community.
Today,
earlier
today,
Byrd
shared
with
you
letters
of
support
from
the
Boise
Metro
Chamber
of
Commerce,
the
downtown
Boise
Association,
the
Idaho
retailers
Association,
the
Idaho
restaurant
and
Lodging
Association
Boise
pride
and
the
Idaho
Steelheads.
J
Every
single
one
of
these
organizations
want
Birds
specifically
to
stay
in
Boise
and
they
say
so
in
their
letters.
In
this
instance,
we
strongly
believe
that
more
is
better
by
including
bird
in
your
program.
You
accept
our
commitment
to
invest
millions
of
more
dollars
in
this
community
over
the
next
five
years
by
including
bird
in
the
program.
You
also
save
a
local
business
and
independent
logistics
company
that
acts
as
Birds
fleet
manager.
J
J
J
I
love
my
experience
in
Boise
and
hope
that
we
can
continue
to
grow
within
the
community.
End
quote
bird
is
the
only
company
of
the
three
that
has
approached
the
opportunity
to
operate
in
Boise
for
what
it
is,
these
last
several
years,
a
responsibility
and
a
privilege
we
want
to
stay
and
we
believe
the
people
of
Boise
will
benefit
from
us
staying.
Thank
you.
A
Is
that
what
you
meant
I
thought
you
wanted
a
warning
with
three
minutes.
We
don't
add
time
to
rebuttal.
This
is
a
this
is
an
appeal
process
and
if
I
said
yes
to
you
every
time,
there's
a
development
appeal.
That's
before
me,
we'd
have
to
do
the
same
thing.
That's
we
stick
to
the
rebuttal
times
and
you
can
use
this
time
now
up.
A
J
Know
what
rebuttal
is
but
I.
A
Thought
that
you
had
rebuttal
time
programmed
in,
but
it
sounds
as
though
you
had
15
minutes
total
to
talk
to
us
tonight,
so
you're
you're
saving
this
time
for
your
rebuttal,
if
you
use
it,
you'd
have
no
rebuttal.
That
is,
that
is
okay,
great
I
thought
you
were
asking
me
to
add
this
to
your
regularly
scheduled
rebuttal
time:
gotcha,
okay
and
we're
good.
If
it
was
pre-arranged,
then
you've
got
four
minutes
for
rebuttal.
E
I
want
to
suss
out
more
clearly
your
first
argument,
which
pertains
to
there's
differing
views
on
to
what
extent
your
involvement
with
the
community
was
or
wasn't
considered
and
should
have
been
considered
so
I'm
going
to
beat
Frank
here's,
how
I
see
it,
and
you
can
tell
me
why
I'm
wrong
if
I'm
wrong,
you
have
some
established
history
in
the
community
that
you
feel
wasn't
considered
properly.
E
One
view
is
that
could
have
been
a
metric
in
the
list
of
factors,
but
it
wasn't,
and
so
your
deadline
to
object
to
that
passed
long
ago.
E
J
I
think
we
would
say
the
city's
experience
to
date
would
hopefully
would
hope
you
would
rely
on
that
both
on
evaluating
bird
and
the
competition.
L
E
K
I
think
we're
the
only
operator
who
has
walked
the
walk.
You
heard
my
colleague,
TJ
Burkle
here
mentioned
these
letters
of
support
that
we've
received
from
these
local
organizations,
which
speak
to
the
fact
that
we
are
investing
in
the
community
and
continue
to
do
so,
not
for
the
purposes
of
winning
an
RFP,
but
for
the
purposes
of
actually
being
contributing
community
members.
Certainly
I
think
there
is
a
a
difference
in
terms
of
who
approaches
this,
as
TJ
mentioned
as
a
privilege
and
a
responsibility
versus
a
business
opportunity.
E
That
didn't
answer
my
question:
here's!
Why?
If
you
were
going
to
walk
the
walk-
and
that
was
an
important
factor,
then
it
should
be
one
of
the
things
in
this
list,
and
so,
if
we're
going
to
draw
on
our
experience
with
you
to
conclude,
these
people
have
walked
the
walk.
How
does
that
get
us
to
any
conclusion
about
whether
what
they've
said
is
reliable?
E
Sorry,
let
me
let
me
slow
down
you're
saying
that
there's
overblown
statements
in
the
submissions
from
the
other
side
that
should
have
been
viewed
with
more
skepticism,
and
your
argument
for
that
is.
You
are
credible
and
have
been
here
for
a
long
time
and
I.
Don't
understand
why
those
are
related
at
all.
Unless
what
you're
really
saying
is
our
history
should
have
been
one
of
the
elements
you
scored
on
expressly.
That's
where
I'm
really
stuck
and
that's
why.
J
Sorry
one
example:
lime
announced
their
partnership
with
the
Boise
Women's
and
Children's
Alliance
in
late
December,
two
weeks
after
the
RFP
had
been
released,
we
would
suggest
that's
pretty
opportunistic.
J
K
If
I
may
add
through
you,
madam
mayor
to
the
councilman's
point,
there's
nothing
again,
as
we
stated
that
said
that
the
individuals
on
the
scoring
committee
could
not
use
their
common
sense
in
terms
of
evaluating
the
veracity
of
some
of
the
claims
that
were
made
in
our
competitors.
Rfps
based
on
the
historic
experience
considering
they
were
also
operating
during
the
same
periods
as
we
were.
Certainly
I.
Think
where
we
have.
K
E
D
Thank
you.
First
of
all,
thank
you
for
being
a
contributor
to
Pride
for
multi-years.
Thank
you
for
being
a
member
of
the
Chamber
of
Commerce.
Those
are
both
organizations
that
we
support
here
at
the
city
of
Boise.
D
So
one
of
the
reasons
why
we're
doing
this
process
is
because
we
actually
haven't
had
a
great
past
experience
with
any
of
our
providers
and
we've
consistently
gotten
complaints
and
issues,
not
with
just
one
company
but
with
all
of
the
companies,
knowing
that
we
still
wanted
to
have
Micro
mobility
in
Boise
as
a
tool
that
we
would
use.
One
of
the
things
that
we
did
both
me
personally
and
both
our
staff
is
that
we
we
look
to
hire
resources.
D
We
went
to
conferences,
we
talked
with
experts
on
how
we
can
try
to
do
this
a
little
bit
better
and
how
we
can
do
this
right
and
the
consistent
feedback
that
we
got
in
addition
to
feedback
from
our
planning.
Our
new
planning
director,
who
wasn't
part
of
those
came
in
from
an
outside
area,
was
that
it's
going
to
be
much
more
advantageous.
D
If
you
go
with
a
single
partner
in
RFP
process,
that
really
enables
you
to
have
a
relationship
where
there's
one
person
solely
respond
responsible
for
the
issues
that
you're
facing
and
so
now
you're
coming
to
us
and
you're,
saying
that
no,
we
actually
think
that
it
would
be
better
if
there
were
two
providers.
So
can
you
make
an
argument
to
me
on
why
the
information
that
we've
been
given
from
other
folks
that
a
one
provider
in
this
RFP
system
is
not
as
good
as
having
the
two
dude
three
of
you,
madam
mayor
yeah,.
K
In
answer
to
your
question,
I
think
it
holds
each
operator
accountable
when
there
is
a
second
provider,
certainly
there's
nothing
wrong
with
being
an
exclusive
provider.
However,
I
do
think
that
in
Boise
specific
case,
there
is
advantage
to
having
two.
Considering
again.
We
believe
that
we
have
shown
our
investment
into
the
community
and
can
now
ensure
that
everybody
is
held
accountable
to
the
same
standards
that
we
have
held
ourselves
to.
J
Speak
for
City
staff,
obviously,
but
the
RFP
certainly
contemplated
considering
more
than
one
operator
and
also
noted
that
the
council,
you
know,
had
the
authority
to
add
additional
operators
as
well.
D
Just
to
follow
up
there,
so
I
think
what
you're
telling
me
is
the
aspect
of
competition
is
what
makes
a
two
provider
better
than
a
one
provider
scenario.
Yes,.
E
F
Madame
mayor,
thank
you.
Thanks
for
all
Echo,
my
colleagues,
Praise
of
all
the
things
you
do
in
the
community
and
we
appreciate
it
and
we
want.
We
want
companies
to
be
partners
with
us,
so
I'm
going
to
ask
this
question,
and
so
you
know,
I
have
20
years
of
RFP
experience
with
government.
I
do
this
for
a
living.
J
F
K
A
Council,
council
president,
you
good
okay,
all
right!
Thank
you.
A
L
Great
thing
definitely
good
evening:
Madam
mayor
and
council
members,
I'm
Hayden
Harvey
I
manage
government
relations
across
Pacific
Northwest
at
Lyme,
and
I'm
grateful
for
the
opportunity
to
be
here
with
you
guys
today.
You'll
find
my
comments
to
be
rather
brief.
Lyme
and
our
employees
here
in
Boise
are
proud
to
serve
this
city
since
the
very
first
pilot
in
2018..
Since
then,
our
writers
have
covered
just
shy
of
900
000
miles
through
your
city.
L
L
Last
month
we
discounted
all
rides
through
the
city
in
direct
partnership
with
the
tree
fort
Music
Festival,
to
encourage
visitors
and
residents
to
get
around
car
free
and
increase
throughput
through
the
downtown
core.
We
were
able
to
reduce
over
1200
car
trips
over
that
weekend.
This
coming
weekend,
we'll
be
working
with
our
friends
at
the
Idaho
Botanical
Garden
Treasure,
Valley,
Canopy,
Network
and
law
school
Brewing
to
provide
discounted
rides
for
folks
headed
to
shade
City
Brew
Fest,
so
they
can
get
there
without
a
car.
L
Our
staff
will
also
be
on
site
to
ensure
our
orderly
deployment
this
summer,
we'll
be
holding
first
right
academies
every
other
weekend
at
the
Boise
Farmers
Market.
At
first
rides.
We
get
folks
on
our
bikes
and
scooters
for
their
first
time.
We
sign
them
up
for
any
of
the
discounts
that
they
might
be
eligible
for.
We
give
them
a
helmet
for
their
next
ride,
with
lime.
L
We're
looking
forward
to
working
with
Boise's
Agency
for
new
Americans,
as
Miss
grieger
pointed
out
to
hold
special
first
ride
academies
where
we
get
folks
enrolled
in
our
lime,
Access
program,
which
is
a
reduced
fare
program
that
way
folks
new
to
Boise,
can
get
to
and
from
work
health
care
and
access
Services,
while
they
settle
in
here.
Finally,
next
week,
employees
across
our
warehouses
in
Across,
the
Western
United
States
from
Phoenix
to
Seattle,
will
wear
denim
in
support
of
our
lime
hero
partner,
WCA.
L
The
women
in
Children's
Alliance,
April
26th,
is
denim
day
a
day-long
visibility
and
awareness
campaign
held
annually
by
WCA
to
bring
awareness
and
support
to
survivors
of
domestic
violence.
We'll
also
begin
sharing,
wca's
awareness
messaging
with
active
Lyme
users
throughout
the
Treasure
Valley
starting
tomorrow.
L
As
you
can
see,
we
have
invested
time
and
resources
not
just
in
working
to
understand
how
we
can
best
serve
the
city,
but
also
in
creatively
and
effectively
giving
back
to
the
Boise
Community.
We
have
very
intentionally
forged
long-term
relationships
with
organizations
that
make
real
impact
in
this
community
limes
past
present
and
future,
as
outlined
in
our
proposal,
is
informed
by
community
and
centers
a
more
connected
future
for
all
boyceans
I.
Very
much
look
forward
to
working
with
our
Community
Partners
and
the
city
for
as
long
as
we
have
the
privilege
to
serve
Boise.
L
The
truth
of
the
matter
is:
we
are
here
tonight
because
of
an
all
too
common
tactic
in
which
bird
calls
into
question
the
hard
work
of
staff
and
evaluators
using
aspirational
and
unfounded
self-scoring
to
bargain
some
may
say,
intimidate
its
way
into
a
market
for
which
it
was
not
selected
line.
Selection
was
made
according
to
long-standing
processes
and
regulations
per
the
city
code
and
the
business
operations
manual
the
same
way
as
much
of
the
Innovative
development
and
procurement
undertaken
by
the
city
in
recent
years.
L
It
will
come
as
no
surprise
to
any
of
you
that
we
affirm
the
city's
decision
and
Confirmation
and
exhibit
h
of
your
packets,
that
this
selection
was
not
made
in
some
sort
of
misinterpretation
or
misunderstanding
by
the
highly
qualified
selection
committee.
The
notion
that
aspirational
self-scoring
ought
to
assert
methodical
evaluation
by
a
qualified
and
impartial
committee
is
in
direct
conflict
with
the
policies
and
regulations
of
the
city
of
Boise
I.
Ask
that
you
vote
tonight
to
affirm
the
decision
of
the
selection
committee
and
staff.
Thank
you
and
I'll
stand
for
questions.
M
Had
a
mirror,
thank
you.
I!
Don't
I
didn't
catch
his
name,
Hayden
Harvey,
Madam,
mayor
Hayden.
Could
you
quantify
the
monetary
value
of
an
exclusive
contract
with
the
city.
L
But
we'll
be
sharing
10
cents
per
trip
with
the
city
as
outlined
in
our
proposal.
L
L
L
E
E
Do
you
want
to
I'm
sorry,
madam
mayor,
do
you
want
to
respond
to
the
other
side's
argument
that
statements
in
your
proposal
were
exaggerated
or
overblown,
or
that
you're
kind
of
a
Johnny
come
lately
who's
making
promises
you
don't
intend
to
to
match
up
because
I
see
it
as
this
really
this
credibility
issue,
but
that
they're
saying
you're,
not
credible
and
obviously
you're
saying
you
are,
do
you
want
to
respond
directly
to
that
argument,
because
it's
their
lead
argument,
yeah.
L
I'd
argue
900
000
miles
through
your
city
is
commitment.
Thank
you.
A
Anything
further,
thank
you
all
right.
Thank
you.
Okay,
now
we're
back
up
bird
with.
Is
it
Mr
Orr
this
time
around
Justin
Jason?
Sorry,
we
will
put
the
clock
at
four
minutes.
Okay,.
N
I,
don't
think
I'll
need
four
minutes.
Adam
Mayer
but
I'm
happy
to
entertain
any
more
questions
that
you
or
anyone
else
will
have
I'd
like
to
start
by
just
saying
that
I'm
not
here
to
intimidate
you
or
anyone,
I,
don't
think
that's
our
strategy
as
a
company
bird
asserts
our
rights
when
we
feel
that
there's
a
reason
to
and
that's
why
we're
here
today
we're
here,
because
Boise
is
important
to
us.
That's
why
we're
here
today!
N
You
know
we
have
three
of
us
here
fighting
to
stay
in
this
community
because
of
our
long-standing
connection.
Here,
we've
been
here
since
2018.,
we
have
the
deepest
communion
Community
ties
of
any
of
the
operators
that
that
submitted
proposals
to
this
RFP.
N
To
answer,
maybe
more
directly
the
council
member's
question:
why?
What
or
or
what
are
we
saying?
You
know
if
if
bird
is
good,
how
does
that
mean?
Lime
is
bad
to
answer
your
question.
I
mean
lime's,
been
here
four
years,
they've
had
four
years
to
demonstrate
commitment
to
this
community
to
invest
in
this
community
to
form
Partnerships
in
this
community.
They
said
they
would
do
things
before
they
didn't.
N
So
when
it
comes
time
to
win
an
RFP,
they
shower
you
with
promises,
but
will
they
keep
them
now?
I
hope
they
will,
and
maybe
they
will
I
mean
I've
I'm,
that's
not
under
my
control,
but
who
is
going
to
keep
them
accountable?
N
What
you
heard
is
that
perhaps
it's
better
to
have
one
operator,
but
if
you
remove
bird
you'll,
be
left
with
lime
and
then,
if
they
don't
live
up
to
their
promises,
what
do
you
do,
then?
You
can
kick
them
out.
You
can.
You
know,
then
you'll
be
left
with
no
one,
so
that
that
is
one
of
the
main
reasons.
We
think
it
would
be
better
to
have
two
operators
here
in
Boise,
because
that
would
keep
both
participants
accountable
to
the
promises
that
they've
made.
N
You
know
I
guess
I'll
point
to
some
of
the
language
that
was
said
by
lime,
because
I
think
it's
indicative
of
of
the
experience
here
in
Boise
and
they
talk
about
discounts
that
they
they
started
last
month.
They
talk
about.
You
know
things
that
are
coming
this
weekend,
things
that
they're
going
to
launch
next
week,
but
they
didn't
launch
it
they
could
they
could
have
done
it
earlier
right
in
in
2022,
lime
was
using
older
generation
models.
N
You
know
first
generation
kind
of
you
know
old
vehicles
right
up
until
the
RFP,
but
bird
brought
you
the
bird
three,
the
the
latest
model
that
we
had
because
we've
been
bringing
you
the
best
and
that's
been
our
approach
to
this
Market
since
day.
One
no
I
think
that's.
That's
all
that
I
wanted
to
say
in
a
rebuttal
but
I'm
again,
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
of
the
questions.
E
So
let
me
let
me
try
to
ask
you
just
directly
I
understand
your
argument
that
you've
been
here
a
while
and
have
been
a
great
Community
partner
and
I
understand
your
argument
that
they
haven't,
in
your
view,
been
as
good
a
partner
that
many
things
that
they've
done
have
come
right
around
the
time
of
the
RFP
and
then,
in
your
view,
that's
suspicious.
E
But
what
you're
letter
to
us
says
is
our
long
history,
and
our
good
performance
and
good
relationships
in
the
city
of
Boise
are
evidence
that
you
shouldn't
believe
their
promises
and
their
commitments,
and
that's
the
part,
I
didn't
understand
and
here's
the
reason
I
didn't
understand
it,
because
I
think
you'd
agree
that
it's
just
on
its
face.
Long
history
or
engagement
with
the
community
would
seem
like
it
should
be
an
evaluation
criteria.
And
if
you
have
an
objection
to
it,
not
being
part
of
that
criteria,
you
had
a
deadline
to
make
that
objection.
E
N
So
the
logic
is
this:
it's
not
that
we
want
there
to
be,
so
we
don't
have
any
objection
to
the
scoring
criteria.
We
thought
they
were
good
enough
criteria
and
that's
why
we
didn't
object
early
in
the
process
and
in
fact,
we
think
all
of
those
scoring
criteria
play
to
our
strengths
as
a
company,
which
is
why
we're
surprised
that
some
evaluators
did
not.
You
know
score
us
consistently
with
what
we've
learned
from
you
know:
agency
staff
and
Community
organizations
and
such
to
to
answer
your
question.
N
Our
argument
is
that
when
you
have
this
experience
and
the
selection
members
were
all
kind
of
the
selecting-
sorry
excuse
me,
the
selection
committee
members
were
selected
to
be
part
of
that
committee
because
they
had
experience
with
administering
the
scooter
program,
and
so
they
weren't
just
you,
know
random
community
members.
They
were
the
experts
here
who
had
knowledge
and
experience
dealing
with
these
companies
and
knowing
how
micro,
Mobility
Works
And.
N
Yet
when
it
came
time
to
actually
score
these
proposals,
they
were
asked
to
set
aside
that
knowledge
and
experience
they
weren't
allowed
to
kind
of
just
know
in
in
you
know
to
trust
their
instincts
and
and
their
experience
of
who
has
cut
their
promises.
Who
has
been
here
in
the
community?
You
know
everybody
now,
for
the
RFP
response
is
going
to
say,
I'll
be
there
for
you,
but
who
has
been
and
that's
the
difference
when
we
say
that
bird
has
been
a
community
partner
and
in
the
community
of
Boise?
N
That's
what
I'm
talking
about
is
that
we
have
lived
up
to
our
commitments
for
over
four
years
and
and
the
other
operators
haven't,
and
so
the
selection
committee
members
should
have
taken
that
into
account.
Not
as
some
I
forget
how
many
scoring
criteria
there
were,
but
not
as
a
separate
Criterion,
but
just
using
their
common
sense
and
judgment
in
thinking
about
the
promises
on
paper.
Okay,.
E
N
D
Man,
Mary
I'm,
gonna,
ask
a
similar
question
that
I
asked
from
your
colleagues
a
little
bit
earlier.
D
We
received
a
lot
of
input
prior
to
making
decision
to
moving
to
one
carrier
that
one
carrier
would
give
us
a
better
result
than
what
we
had
been
getting,
which
I
think
was
dissatisfaction
by
a
lot
of
folks
in
the
community
about
the
way
a
microbial
micro
Mobility
was
going
to
that
point
and
I
think
that
we
had
issues
that
were
raised
about
every
single
one
of
our
providers
and
so
I'm
trying
to
understand
how
moving
to
two
isn't
just
going
to
have
the
same
problem
that
we
ran
into
before
our
goal
here
is
to
get
to
a
better
solution.
D
D
It
seems
like
you're
telling
us
that,
like
lime's
not
going
to
do
a
very
good
job
anyway,
so
we're
gonna,
we're
gonna,
be
the
good
partner
in
this
situation.
Make
a
make
a
case
to
me.
Y2
is
better
than
one
in
this
situation
and
why
we're
not
going
to
run
into
the
same
issue
that
we
ran
into
a
three.
N
Well,
first,
we
are
going
to
be
a
good
partner,
but
second,
what
the
reason
you
want
more
than
one
operator
is
because
it
helps
hold
the
others
accountable.
But
candidly
bird
is
a
better
company
for
having
limes
competition.
N
Micro
Mobility
is
a
young
industry.
It's
a
work
in
progress
and,
yes,
we're
still
working
out
some
of
the
Kinks.
That's
true
as
you've
heard
for
all
of
the
operators.
There
are
issues
and
we're
getting
better.
You
know
every
month
and
every
year,
but
when
you
have
just
one
operator
who
has
a
monopoly,
there's
less
of
an
incentive
to
kind
of
push
the
envelope
to
you
know
bring
your
your,
your
newest
and
best
Innovations
to
this
Market.
You
might
because
it
might
be
expensive
to
do
it.
N
You
might
do
it
in
another
Market,
where
you're
more
motivated
to
do
so.
That's
the
reason
why
you
have
two.
A
N
Probably
not
I
mean
to
be
honest
with
you,
the
RFP
anticipated
having
an
exclusive
operator.
We
submitted
a
proposal
that
anticipated
that
we
would
be
the
exclusive
operator
and
I
think.
If
bird
were
chosen
as
the
exclusive
operator,
we
might
do
a
better
job
at
it,
because
I
mean
given
our
experience
and
kind
of
living
up
to
our
commitments
in
this
community.
N
It
was
probably
a
lower
risk
option
to
choose
bird
if
you're
going
to
do
an
exclusive,
so
no
I
doubt
we'd,
be
in
your
office
saying
if
we
had
won
an
exclusive
you
should
have
too,
but
that
wasn't
my
decision
right.
The
city
decided
to
release
an
RFP
that
anticipated.
M
Yeah
yeah,
if
I
might
Jason
yes.
M
You
first
question:
why
not
spin,
if
we're
gonna
do
two,
they
were
ranked
second.
N
N
Spin
I
mean
I'll
note
with
spin
I
think
they
had
the
second
highest
score
for
the
financial
commitment
to
the
city,
and
we
we
had
the
best
one.
Actually,
by
far
the
best
one
I
think
we
committed
to
something
like
21
million
dollars
of
I.
A
Think
I
think
that's
we
don't
we
don't
need
to
go
into
all
of
that.
I
think
you
answered
the
council
member's
question.
He
has
a
second
question.
Oh.
N
Sure
I
guess
the
second
part
of
the
answer
to
that
is
just
that.
You
know
spin's
not
here.
Appealing
I
mean
the
more
practical
answer
did.
A
N
A
Right
so
now
it's
not
a
public
hearing,
we've
heard
everybody
that
was
the
rebuttal,
and
so
this
matters
before
Council.
Oh.
G
Staff,
thank
you,
madam
mayor
I,
just
wanted
to
follow
up
on
this
question
about
the
decision
to
move
to
one
and
maybe
just
a
response
on
the
argument
on
better
competition
with
having
more
than
one
provider.
Could
you
just
articulate
the
staff's
evaluation
of
that
and
the
reasons
why
the
city
decide
to
choose
one
sure.
I
A
I
Madame
mayor
council,
member
Haney
Keith
right
now,
the
way
our
code
set
up,
we
can
have
a
maximum
of
1500
devices.
Technically.
However,
many
operators
get
us
up
to
that
as
long
as
they're
getting
a
certain
number
of
rides
per
day.
So
that
means
here
we
have
three
providers
each
managing
their
own
individual
fleets
and
as
they
make
those
decisions
to
manage
their
individual
fleets
they're,
making
them
as
I
kind
of
said
earlier,
placing
them
based
on
the
highest
amount
of
ridership.
I
When
you
have
one
provider
they
have
one
Fleet,
that's
maybe
the
same
size
as
those
three
individual
fleets,
so
they're
not
going
to
concentrate
them
the
same
way
as
if
they
were
three
individual
providers,
they're
going
to
be
able
to
disperse
them
throughout
the
city
a
little
bit
better.
It's
going
to
create
more
consistency
for
us.
If
we
get
a
call
that
says
a
scooter
is
knocked
over
on
the
sidewalk,
we
know
exactly
what
scooter
that
is
without
putting
the
burden
on
whoever
saw
it
to
say
like
oh
it
has
this
license
plate
number.
I
It
was
a
lime
device.
It
was
a
bird
device.
It
was
whatever
kind
of
device
we
know
that's
going
to
be
bird,
we
know
it's
going
to
be
lime,
whoever
it
is
and
if
there's
a
situation
where
we're
seeing
Perpetual
problems
with
parking,
we
know
exactly
who
the
offender
is.
We
know
exactly
who
it
is
that
needs
to
be
held
accountable
and
to
that
end,
by
shifting
to
one
provider
we're
now
replacing
our
section
of
code
that
allows
us
to
license
three
with
a
contract
that
will
hold
them
accountable
to
do
these
things.
I
So,
for
all
these
reasons,
you
know
simplified
communication.
More
accountability,
we
believe,
is
the
reason
why
we
would
be
able
to
affirm
one
provider,
but
also,
we
believe
in
the
content
of
this
RFP.
It
would
change
the
arguments
substantially
if
we
had
said
in
the
RFP,
we
want
to
pick
two
versus
we
want
to
pick
one
I
think
that
would
have
changed
what
people
are
willing
to
offer
if
they
knew
they
had
competition
in
the
market.
F
And
if
the
attorney
says
we
need
to
reframe
this
I'm
ready,
so
just
I
moved
to
deny
the
appeal
of
RFP
23078.
D
A
F
So,
first
of
all,
I
love,
Market
competition,
I
think
it
drives.
Innovation
I
think
it's
really
important.
You
probably
won't
find
anybody
on
this
dice
more
driven
by
market
competition
than
me,
but
we
as
a
council,
made
the
decision
to
do
one
vendor
for
the
purpose
of
broad
Geographic
opportunities.
F
F
So
when
we
do
that,
the
time
to
say
Hey,
you
are
not
focusing
on
the
right
thing
is
not
after
the
scoring
is
done
it's
before
and
I
think
what
happened
here
is
because
there's
that
phrase
that
says
the
best
interest
of
the
city,
there
was
a
world
of
dice
and,
like
we'll
we'll
see
well,
our
experience
will
will
definitely
be
the
best
interest
of
the
city.
But
that's
a
value
judgment.
It's
a
value
judgment
based
on
the
people
that
that
did
the
criteria.
D
E
C
E
I
am
going
to
join
the
motion
and
here's
why
it's
an
appeal,
so
we
have
a
standard
and
we
have
to
find
the
decision
was
arbitrary,
capricious
or
unreasonable
and
so
I
go
through
each
of
your
arguments
under
that
standard
that
our
code
requires.
E
The
first
argument
was
some
version
of
our
history
and
Community
involvement
wasn't
considered
sufficiently
or
wasn't
considered
sufficiently
in
each
element
or
the
like.
It's
a
legal
argument:
if
the
criteria,
the
evaluation
criteria
should
have
included
it
but
didn't,
but
you
had
a
deadline
to
make
that
argument,
and
it's
passed
it's
a
factual
argument.
If
you're
arguing,
you
didn't
consider
our
history
enough
or
our
history
should
lead
to
conclusions
about
their
credibility
so
on
a
factual
question,
I
have
to
ask:
did
they
were
they
arbitrary
and
not
thinking
about
it?
E
Well,
it's
not
in
the
criterias,
it's
not
arbitrary,
were
they
capricious
or
at
a
whim,
but
they
worked
really
hard
and
evaluated
everything,
and
was
it
unreasonable
to
take
their
statements
at
face
value
I,
don't
think
it
was
I
do
think
they
tested
it
on
the
specific
scoring.
It's
kind
of
the
same
for
me.
You
had
weighted
criteria
in
a
committee
and
there
were
outliers
people
who
evaluated
things
very
differently.
E
There
were
short
and
tall
measurements,
as
you
might
say,
on
the
criteria,
but
that
was
true
of
all
the
applicants
and
that's
the
whole
point
of
having
a
group
or
a
committee.
It
waits
out
to
an
average
and
particularly
telling
for
me
as
to
whether
they
were
unreasonable
or
arbitrary
or
capricious.
Is
that
even
on
all
the
on
all
the
points
you
never
missed
by
more
than
one
and
a
half
points
now
they're
weighted,
so
it
shakes
out
differently.
But
you
came
close.
E
Everybody
came
close
on
everything,
so
I
don't
see
anything
that
leaps
out
as
arbitrary
or
unreasonable
and
then
the
final
piece
about.
Oh
there's,
two
pieces,
the
final
piece
about
Lions
proposal,
lacking
elements
that
were
in
the
RFP.
You
know
that
that
might
be
true
it's
hard
to
tell,
but
we
expressly
reserved
the
discretion
to
waive
elements
of
a
proposal
if
we
needed
to
to
get
to
what
we
thought
was
the
best
one,
so
not
unreasonable
to
waive
it
right
and
then
finally
on
there
should
be
two
or
there
should
be
one.
D
Council,
member
Beijing,
still
every
single
one
of
my
talking
points
for
clarification
on
those
so
great
job.
We
do
appreciate
good
partnership.
We
appreciate
your
supporting
the
community.
We
appreciate
you
sending
three
folks
out
here
and
we
appreciate
your
partnership
as
well
the
stuff
that
you're
doing
that's
something
I,
think
that
we
love
to
see
as
Council
folks
in
our
community
as
a
whole
is
direct
involvement
there,
and
so
that's
something
we
sure
hope
to
see
going
forward.
So
thank
you.
O
Madam
mayor,
thank
you,
madam
mayor.
Go
ahead.
Thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
add
a
couple
of
things
to
the
conversation.
I
think
that
a
the
RFP
process
was
good
I
when
we
were
having
this
policy
discussion
months
ago
about
whether
we
go
from
a
model
that
has
a
lot
of
Market
competition
where
folks
are
incented
to
do
different
things
to
address
the
market
to
one
where
we
select
one
vendor
I
was
frankly
a
little
bit
wary.
O
I
did
a
lot
of
reading
on
how
that
actually
gets
us
closer
to
the
things
that
we've
been
asking
for
for
years
that
none
of
our
vendors
have
really
been
providing
to
our
community.
It's
been
a
lot
of
frustration.
That's
gotten
us
here
to
where
we're
now
going
to
a
single
Vendor
model,
where
we'll
have
a
little
bit
more
control,
a
little
bit
closer
partnership
to
get
what
we
need
out
of
micro
mobility
in
the
city,
because
I
think
micro
Mobility
is
really
important.
O
It's
a
great
way
for
folks
to
get
around
out
of
cars.
It
helps
us
accomplish
our
climate
goals.
You
know
there's
all
kinds
of
reasons
why
we
want
this,
but
an
RFP
is
an
RFP
and
we
had
folk
score.
They
did
so
fairly.
We
have
no
reason
to
determine
that
that
was
arbitrary
or
capricious
and
I
just
want
to
say.
I
think
that
this
has
really
shown
a
couple
of
companies
that
have
some
different
strategies
in
going
to
Market.
O
We
have
one
company
bird
I
can
I've
engaged
with
you
all
for
years
now
you
have
a
lot
of
proactive
government
relations
folks
and
do
a
lot
of
sponsorships
have
a
lot
of
Partnerships
and
I.
O
A
lot
of
community
engagement.
That's
wonderful!
We
appreciate
it,
but
that
strategy
was
not
what
we
were
looking
for
here.
So
I
appreciate
the
appeal:
I
think
it's
been
a
good
conversation
but
I'll
be
supporting
the
motion.