Sioux Falls

Denver, CO sees measurable results from incentivizing E-Bikes

While many people have told me to get off my high-horse about helping low income folks with an E-Bike leasing program, Denver has found that it has measurable results;

Researchers at Portland State University are tracking 65 programs nationwide that are active or that have been approved to help people get on e-bikes, either through subsidies or loaning a bike. California plans to launch a statewide program next year backed by $10 million.

E-bikes, which have a motor and battery to propel riders, can cost about $2,000, putting them out of reach for many low-income families. Denver’s program has two tiers, with one that offers $400 to any city resident — an amount aimed at sweetening the deal for would-be buyers. For low-income residents, the second tier increases the voucher size to $1,200, a sum city officials say should make the bikes more widely affordable.

Two other elements of the program are designed to encourage buyers to use their bikes for transportation: a bonus of $500 for cargo bikes, which can carry children or a large load, while full-suspension mountain bikes used primarily for recreation aren’t eligible.

And after Denver tried this pilot program, guess what they found out;

A city survey found new e-bike riders were riding, on average, 26.2 miles per week, and that low-income buyers were riding about 32 miles per week. Respondents said they had replaced 3.4 car trips each week with bike rides.

“It’s so much faster,” said Rink, who commutes by e-bike. “It’s much less of a chore. There is an element of joy in riding the e-bike.”

I would agree, my main reason I like riding my E-Bike is because it is enjoyable, but if you look at the results of this successful program it is also equitable. I hope the new transportation board in Sioux Falls looks at this.

City of Sioux Falls passing community centers over to the SF School District

During the informational meeting today, the Parks Department proposed turning over the community centers to the SFSD for a after school program.

Councilor Merkouris questioned how this was concocted behind closed doors without input from a majority of the council and school board. He didn’t put it that way and was little more clever and asked how the SFSD can send out notifications for this program’s enrollment before the council or school board approved this.

The SFSD and the Parks Department tried to tie in future proposed indoor rec and pool centers. So are they proposing the SFSD take over the Midco Aquatic center? Yankton Trail Park? If you are trying to justify these indoor rec centers, then justify them for city public use not for supplementing the SFSD after school programs.

I agree this is needed, but I am with Rich, why wasn’t our policy body, the council, working on this? I often question what the purpose of our council is if the mayor’s office is molding policy and sponsoring it on the agenda. Might as well just put eight tic-tac-toe playing chickens on the dais, probably make better decisions 🙂

Councilor Starr questioned if the city will be saving any money? It doesn’t appear that way, it looks like we will still be providing funding since the city will still have use of the community centers on some occasions.

While I agree the SFSD should be sponsoring this program, I’m not sure it is the responsibility of city coffers (sales taxes) to help with this. I have been a major proponent of Pre-K education and public funding of it, but that should come from property taxes, Federal grants and mostly state coffers. We have a child care crisis in this city and country, no denying it, but we need to direct funding from the correct coffer. When I have to drive over 6″ ice ruts down my residential street, I’m not wondering why the city isn’t funding child care, I’m wondering why they are not spending my sales taxes on the most basic of needs like road maintenance.

Downtown Sioux Falls BID tax almost doubled due to typo in ordinance

I am not surprised this happened. Over the past decade I have watched the integrity of the legal descriptions in ordinances deteriorate substantially and it seems almost weekly the council is amending some mistake or typo (Item #96);

This would have been quite the boo-boo.

This past year the Building Services manager had to apologize to the city council for screwing up on a fee adjustment that wasn’t caught by the council or attorney’s office but by a contractor.

The BID Tax increase was deferred because a couple of DTSF business owners cried. I don’t see any amendments and I don’t expect any tonight, this will pass easily. The Billionaire Italians bitching about this increase can afford it, oh, and will DTSF hang some damn xmas lights at Sunshine already!

Mayor TenHaken is running out of employee options

He is now having directors double up on their duties;

Shawn Pritchett, who has served in the role of finance director since late 2018, will now also be the director of innovation and technology for the city, following the council’s unanimous approval of TenHaken’s appointment.

It is getting pretty obvious that PTH is struggling to recruit people to work for him, which he even admits;

TenHaken called Pritchett an “obvious choice” for the role, and candidly noted that he was “0 for 3” in directors of the department during his administration, which he said was one thing that made him want to look inside for a new director.

He is actually ‘0 for 12+’ when it comes to directors. I have lost count. Why is it that people either don’t want to work for Paul’s administration or only last a short time?

Maybe he needs to start merging other department heads? Like Fire and Police? Parks and Rec with Entertainment facilities? If we can’t find people to work for this mayor maybe we could just consolidate?

City of Sioux Falls plan to expand indoor pools has been in the works for years

This is no surprise, before the doors of the Midco even opened there were plans to expand the indoor facilities;

South Dakota’s largest community is readying to spend tens of millions of dollars overhauling its pool system, which could include a pair of brand new indoor aquatic centers.

The plan to expand indoor facilities has been talked about for a long time. In fact, the bonds they are proposing have been on the table for years.

I am NOT against building indoor rec facilities that have multiple uses, but when we are losing $700K a year on just one indoor pool we have to ask ourselves some serious operating expense questions. If these community centers are meant to help those who can’t afford private fitness clubs why not have certain hours where they are FREE to use by anyone?

Leon Younger, President of PROs Consulting, reviewed the alignment with the Park System Master Plan, with the following main points: replace aging aquatic facilities; renovate and update aquatic facilities to extend their useful life; adult fitness and wellness programs; year round programming; maintain the level of service with population growth; address the shortage of indoor recreation space. Younger also stated the following recommendations: prioritize indoor multi-generational recreation center with aquatics at Frank Olson or Kuehn Park, ideally both; follow Master Plan for McKennan Park with replacement of wading pool; add shade and upgraded concessions at Terrace and Laurel Oak parks.

We can’t say on one hand we are here to help the less fortunate then turn around and charge an entrance fee like we do that already at many city owned facilities.

You will also find that the largest number of people who filled out the survey were from the SE district in North Harrisburg. It makes you wonder if that district is more targeted online to participate in the survey. The SE district is what shaped the last city election, and now we are letting them shape policy.

It will be interesting to see what kind of operating expenses the Parks Department comes up with.