At Tomorrow’s City Council meeting (September 2nd), the Council will consider entering into an agreement with “SPIN” to provide shared electric scooters in Ivins. SPIN is already in St. George and other cities around us. The City Council has not discussed this issue yet or made a decision, so this is our opportunity to help them with useful suggestions.
Here are the comments I sent the Council. It will help the Council if you share your suggestions. Here are their emails: chart@ivins.com; cmcdonald@ivins.com; dmehr@ivins.com; jjohnson@ivins.com; sgordhammer@ivins.com; dlarsen@ivins.com.
The SPIN electric scooters, technology, and management are impressive. And their goal to get operational in time for the Ironman makes sense. But there are enough issues that I ask the City Council to hold a public hearing before deciding on the SPIN agreement.
Although SPIN provides a service to users and revenue to the City, it also potentially negatively impacts the usability of our paths, sidewalks, and streets, and raises safety concerns with scooters operating in the same spaces as pedestrians (of all ages and abilities), and bicycles. SPIN can geofence no ride zones. That capability makes it valuable to get public input on where those zones should be.
If the City Council decides to enter into this agreement, I suggest these changes:
Have SPIN operate “dockable” rather than “dockless” scooters. I’ve seen too many dockless scooters scattered all over the place in other cities. SPIN says they will be responsive if scooters are left where they aren’t supposed to be, but it is still a concern. SPIN has “charging hubs.” Couldn’t they use these as the only pickup and return locations?
Agreement: Section 2 – Term
The agreement calls for automatic annual renewals. Automatic renewals don’t put enough pressure on vendors to provide the best service. Instead, require the vendor to request each annual renewal.
Agreement: Section 3(b) – Per Trip Fee
I believe the $0.15 per trip fee is insufficient for what Ivins brings to the table and potential negative impacts. I think SPIN charges customers $1 plus $0.15 to $0.39 per minute. So, a 10-minute use costs at least $2.50. The City receives 6%. If the average charge is higher, the City’s percentage is even less.
The City is providing the land and SPIN the improvements. The land doesn’t generate income without the improvements. And improvements don’t generate revenue without the land. In a real estate project, the land is usually worth 25% to 35% of the total project value. So, Ivins should receive 25% to 35% of the income after SPINs normal operating expenses, which excludes SPINs capital and finance costs of buying scooters, creating apps, infrastructure, etc. because that is the “improvement” SPIN is providing.
I realize it would be difficult to determine operating expenses and manage payments to the City. Instead, I suggest changing the fee from a fixed amount to a percentage of the customer charge. It would be helpful to have data on actual average customer charges, but I believe a fee of 15% of the customer charge is reasonable and acknowledges the value of the land that the City is providing.
Agreement: Section 4(c) – Exclusivity
I am concerned about providing exclusivity as written in the agreement. What if a local Ivins business wants to rent out electric scooters (ones they own, not a competing national scooter operator)? I am not in favor of limiting potential future opportunities for local Ivins businesses for the benefit of SPIN.
Agreement: Exhibit A – Approved Locations
Ivins Residents should have the opportunity to provide input on locations before any locations are committed. Also, some of the proposed locations are in in or near Snow Canyon State Park. Maybe this has already happened, but the Park should be involved in approving at least locations near the Park because these locations will have the most impact on everyone who uses the Park.
Please share your comments and tell me about other Ivins issues I have not addressed in recent posts. CONTACT ME