BC Electric’s Medo makes accusations about e-bike/scooter law

While the great majority of public comment surrounding the issues of unsafe usage — often by juveniles — of e-bikes and electric scooters was firmly on the side of the city “doing something,” not everyone is onboard.

The owner of Boulder City Electric, Aaron Medo, appears to be firmly in the “not onboard” camp.

Last week, after a series of collisions and close calls, the city council voted unanimously to adopt Ordinance 2082, which regulated speed, allowed locations and manner of use for said vehicle types. It also mandates that juveniles wear a helmet. The new law is backed up by potential fines of up to $600 and is slated to go into effect on Sept. 18.

Late last week, the Review received a copy of an email that Medo had sent to all members of the council as well as to City Manager Ned Thomas in which he called on the city to rescind the law or delay its implementation in favor of funding an education program that he had pitched to city staff in both June and July.

In the letter, Medo also accuses the city of running afoul of Nevada’s very strict public records law in the way the ordinance was agendized.

Further, he says that the data presented to council by the city attorney and police chief misrepresents the facts.

“I am not just a concerned resident. I am a lifelong action sports athlete and the owner of Boulder City Electric, a local business with deep technical and safety expertise. I have spent decades mastering, building, and teaching the safe use of the very devices this ordinance seeks to restrict,” Medo says in the letter.

“The city had before it a comprehensive, safety-first alternative — the DamWise – Certified to Ride Program — which I formally presented on June 17, 2025 and again on July 15, 2025, in meetings attended by the city manager, police chief, Business Development, Chamber of Commerce, and Public Works,” his letter continues. “In both sessions, I clearly stated my opposition to regulation, enforcement, and civil penalties prior to the adoption of an education-based safety solution.”

Medo reports that his proposal, which would involve the city paying $155,000 annually for he and his team (which appears to be his family as they all have the same last name) to implement a mandatory education and certification program that would also need to be paid for by the people taking the course.

His proposal was handed off to the business development staff, which resulted in the following email:

Thank you again for your time and the work you put into preparing your proposal for the DamWise Comprehensive Safety, Training and Oversight Program for Electric Rideables. We have shared your idea with additional city staff and believe the best way to move forward is to explore creating a Parks and Recreation class that would provide guidance to electric scooter and bike owners to safely operate their vehicles. This class would not be mandatory, but like so many of the other offerings provided by the Parks and Recreation Department, a voluntary class that residents can sign up for that would include a fee to participate.

Medo accuses city staff of failing to distribute his plan to the council and as a result, “The council was left in the dark while an ordinance that is incomplete, discriminatory, and potentially unlawful was advanced. My proposal outlined a city-funded program that would directly address and significantly reduce accidents involving micromobility devices through structured training, certification, and oversight.”

In terms of supporting data, Medo says the the 20% rise in injuries nationwide cited by City Attorney Brittany Walker and confirmed by Police Chief Tim Shea is technically correct but misleading.

“The global e-scooter market has doubled in size in five years, with U.S. sales reaching 1.1 million units in 2022,” his letter states. “With millions more riders, raw injury totals naturally rose, but per-rider risk has not increased.”

As far as the open meeting law accusation, Medo says that the agenda for Ordinance No. 2082 only mentioned helmets and sidewalk speed limits and failed to “disclose the broad restrictions actually included.” Note that the text of the proposed ordinance was included in the agenda packet both when the bill was introduced and two weeks later when it was voted on and passed.

Multiple attempts to contact Medo before press time were unsuccessful, which leaves several questions unanswered. [EDITOR'S NOTE: On the day after publication, the Review learned that multiple emails sent to Medo at the same general bcelectric.com address that was used to send his letter to the city had ended up in his spam folder and he did not see them prior to publication. While the Review did make attempts to contact Medo, he did not receive them in time to reply.]

Following the letter, which was forwarded to a city spokesperson for comment by the Review, Boulder City Communication Manager Lisa LaPlante issued a lengthy response addressing Medo’s points and accusations.

The ordinance that will be effective September 18th accomplishes two main objectives in ensuring the safety of pedestrians and those persons operating bicycles, e-bicycles, e-scooters, and other toy vehicles. First, it requires helmets for individuals under 18 operating bicycles, e-bicycles, and e-scooters, and second, it puts into place a speed limit of 15 mph on sidewalks and multiuse paths. It also requires due care in operation of bicycles, e-bicycles, and e-scooters, and addresses some other less significant gaps in state law with respect to the operation of bicycles, e-bicycles, and e-scooters.

The ordinance is silent on education and training for operation of bicycles, e-bicycles, and e-scooters, as this is not something that needs to be addressed by ordinance, unless the city wanted to make such training mandatory. The decision to make training mandatory is a policy decision for city council to make, but more research would be needed to see if the city could make such training mandatory. Nevada is a Dillon rule state, and the state law has not expressly given the power for mandatory bike safety school trainings to cities.

Mr. Medo has a business proposal to organize and provide a class to residents that he would charge money to provide. He asked the city to make this class mandatory. City staff met with Mr. Medo to discuss his proposal and explained that the best way to move forward is to explore creating a Parks and Recreation class that would provide guidance to electric scooter and bike owners to safely operate their vehicles. This class would not be mandatory, but like so many of the other offerings provided by the Parks and Recreation Department, a voluntary class that residents can sign up for that would include a fee to participate. He has not followed up with Parks and Recreation.

The ordinance in no way hinders or impedes Mr. Medo’s proposal. The city cannot depend on third parties to ensure our children have access to education regarding bike safety, and our police department and fire department have the education, experience, and training to offer such education on the law and safety and we are looking to collaborate with the schools to offer such education.

The city is still open to partnering with Mr. Medo, but he can already offer his class to the public without any action by the city, other than maybe his applying for a new business license and any associated permits that may or may not be required.