The council is meeting on Monday this week so they can drink fizzy American light beer and hob knob with the business class on Tuesday night at the yearly Chamber thingy.
I see the Sneve-a-nator from the Argus took a page out of Detroit Lewis’ playbook and decided to preview the council mayhem (thanks Joe, it makes my preview a lot easier);
First off, I see outgoing councilor Karksy is looking to play with fire and possibly mess with state law;
Karsky told me recently he’s leaning toward a city-wide ban on single-serve alcohol sales in hopes of cutting down on the thousands of nuisance calls Sioux Falls police officers deal with every year.
I say this, because I think the types of alcohol ‘products’ that can be sold are essentially controlled by the state. All the city does is essentially license a business to sell a category of alcohol (malt, wine, spirits, etc.) I think it would be difficult for the city to create an ordinance limiting a certain malt beverage item. But I could be wrong. Secondly, it is a really stupid idea (because 6 packs will still be available) and thirdly, I think the malt beverage companies will be screaming bloody murder.
I also see that Mr. Safety, Councilor Rickdiculous Kiley wants the Jehovah witness to wear badges when selling you Jehovahness door to door in Sioux Falls;
Kiley told me this afternoon he’s been working with the police department to review the city’s peddlers ordinance after receiving calls from concerned constituents. The ordinance requires door-to-door salesmen to be licensed with the city and cease solicitation at 8 p.m. Kiley intends to discuss it during the Land Use committee meeting and possibly suggest making those folks wear some sort of city-issued identification.
Well maybe the JeVo’s have nothing to worry about. But I find the statement ‘receiving calls from concerned constituents’ to be, well, Rickdiculous. If door to door salespeople irritate you, why do you answer the door when they knock? Seems solving the problem is as easy as ignoring it. Besides, the peddlers who are being complained about probably don’t have a peddler’s permit either, so what makes you think they will get a badge?
But of all the things on the council agenda, this takes the cake;
Now three months later, the council will be asked to enter into an agreement with Koch Hazard, the Sioux Falls architecture firm that would oversee progress on the city (administration) building project.
So when you get to the council meeting page, scroll down to Item# 34, click on it and to the right click on the 2nd PDF document, then scroll down to 12.1.1 (I can’t link or copy any of this verbatim because of the strong copyright language ON EVERY PAGE OF THE CONTRACT, but what it essentially says is this; The architect is not allowed to talk about the project with the press (or anybody) with out the consent of the city (the owner). In other words setting up another secretive building project like the Events Center (and it’s rippling siding).
After a constituent pointed this out to me, he essentially said this;
I’m thinking if I was sitting on the council having to vote on this I’d be asking.1.  Why this clause?  Why can’t the architect freely talk about a public project?2.  Per this agreement can the public ask for the plans, drawings, specs etc and get access?3.  Can they get all change orders?…other?
During the always un-informational, informational meeting, city clerk Hogstad will be letting the cat out of the bag on the municipal election precincts (no vote centers) What is that music I am hearing in the background . . . quick jump in your ballot box!
There of course is a lot of other fun stuff on the regular meeting agenda, including pool rates, legal typos, and cell phone bans,