[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfeXx1zpS1w[/youtube]
Few things need more explanation. The end of a July 19, 2016 item #40 Sioux Falls City Council Public Input. A city of Sioux Falls official struck Cameraman Bruce on the back of his head back on April 14, 2015 right after the administration building introduction. Bruce just reminded the Council of why the building has special meaning for him. We’ll keep all informed.
Just another echo chamber . . .
My guess is the mayor will veto the decision purely on arrogance and ego, I hope I am wrong.
What was incredibly ridiculous was the testimony supporting the facility.
A city director felt we needed the new building so he didn’t have to fear urine coming through his current city hall office in the basement.
Another guy testified about America being a great country, so we needed the building.
Erpenbach said city employees need natural light and she works 40 hours a week in a cubicle farm (yet didn’t say anything about quitting her job because of it).
Kiley said it was about his children and things will get more expensive (yeah, Rick, that’s called inflation). It won’t get a penny more expensive if you don’t build it at all, just saying.
Bob Winkels (who used to own his own architecture firm, and now is in charge of Sanford’s expansion that is destroying affordable housing in central Sioux Falls) claimed that the general public didn’t understand ‘conflict of interest’ when it came to the contractors, explaining that renovation costs more (which can be true). What he failed to point out is that the contractors were hired to build a new building, not to renovate. So if they build the new building they will make X amount of dollars, if they choose to buy the 300 building and renovate they make $0. Bob, kind of sounds like a conflict of interest to me.
Rex Rolfing cut off public testimony of Tim Stanga, because he was offended.
Mayor Mike’s BFF, Augie President Rob Oliver was rambling about something he doesn’t quite understand, but he says he likes to build new buildings for Augie (but had no problem with taking a used building-the Arena-for a new basketball stadium).
I testified about the hypocrisy of this debate that the building has been discussed for 10 years, yet no one brought it up when building the new aquatic center and the funding for that building.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qio8IfzBYUs[/youtube]
This is an instructional video for all to learn how to destroy a career with one project. We learn how a reasonably respected building designer can compromise everything in a classic business as usual scenario. The only problem is the Sioux Falls City Council is not running in the old business as usual mode any longer.
On July 12, 2016 the City Council convened for the Tuesday Informational to discuss the disgustingly biased report done by the “consultants” hired by the city to give a “fair” evaluation of the condition of the 300 Building opened in 1971. After the Informational was done, we had to go there for a real tour to see if the consultants were even close to being unbiased. They weren’t looking at the same building we saw.
The city staff should be brought up on ethics charges for the job they tried to do on the reputation of this building designed to last a lot longer than the one the designer wants to build. The 300 Building in downtown Sioux Falls was built to federal government specifications to last forever.
As you watch our video, notice how the presenters work to reinforce the concept of conflict of interest. How’s the search for new ethical members of the that certain board coming along? They may be tested.
With our trusty tape measure in one hand and our handicam in the other we tour the 300 Building and find many irregularities in the submitted report. The staff and consultants should be ashamed of themselves.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5u3_Bc-2MI[/youtube]
Hey everyone, Rex wants you to take donuts and get out of here until at least next time, whenever that is. So ended the July 13, 2016, 7 AM Breakfast meeting of the Regional Cooperative Government Committee otherwise know as the three Sioux Falls area city and county governmental units.
As Cameraman Bruce showed up to the Hy-Vee Club Room, there were weird hand signals and blank stares from a few members to greet his cameras. At least he did not hear the resounding phrase from the chair, “No Bruce not (today or tonight or anytime).
It was an interesting meeting as members attempted to lay a groundwork for further cooperation which could lead to an eventual metro area gobernment. So you might as well find donuts and orange juice to join in all the fun.
Tuesday night’s city council meeting may be one of the most exciting in a long time, and it comes down to two items next to each other, 39 and 40.
Item 39 deals with the Paramedics Plus contract and rate increases. The city council really doesn’t have a choice on this one. If a majority votes against it, they could be sued by Paramedics Plus, so you ask, what’s the point? Trust me, the councilors have been asking themselves that very question.
But don’t think it will get passed quietly. Many former and current Paramedics Plus employees have been speaking out, so have some fire fighters, and mistreated patients and others with connections to REMSA. Expect to hear some interesting public testimony before the vote.
Then there is that little $25 million administration building, Item 40. Expect to hear more testimony, not only about the proposed building but about the 300 building and other unused space the city currently owns. But even if the council can sustain their 5 votes from last week (I suspect they will) they won’t be veto proof. Or can they get one of the 3 to flip (which is a possibility).
But the bigger question is, will Huether veto the repeal if it gets a 5-3 vote? It’s dangerous territory, he wouldn’t just be vetoing the 5 councilors he would be putting a big middle finger to all the voters who elected them to make prudent fiscal decisions. Four of them this past Spring heard it loud and clear from the constituents, they don’t want to see city government grow, they want their money spent on fixing our infrastructure, not paying another mortgage for a building we don’t need.
I also ask the question, if this building was so important, why didn’t we propose it before the indoor pool? We could have used the levee bond repayment to go as a down payment on this building, but instead we foolishly threw the money away on an indoor aquatic center we should have built with a private partnership.
If the mayor thinks his popularity is getting worse, I can guarantee if he vetoes the council on this one, he can kiss the governorship bye-bye. Because he will own that veto straight through the Fall of 2018.
l3wis