The meetings will be on Monday this week.
During the informational we will get an update on the September financials, and they are still lagging from last year. Lodging is way down.
During the Regular Meeting Item #34, 2nd Reading, 5G tower in McKennan Park.
This is why I often tell people running for local office to have someone proofread their campaign materials before releasing them. Besides the fact that the first two sentences were incoherent, I’m sure she meant to say we are ‘Hardy’ in Minnehaha County, but I’m not sure what that has to do with the treasurer’s office? Maybe it means we can tolerate standing in long lines for hours?
(FF: 32:00)
When I first read the Sioux Falls City Council agenda this past weekend I assumed this item that was worded as if NSP was just burying a line was just that, burying a line – not quite. If you read the entire document posted on SIRE, you still have no idea what it is except that NSP is subcontracting with Verizon. It wasn’t until a city official explaining the item last night that it was revealed that it was a ‘small cell tower’ and then admitted it was a 5G tower. They also said that it was presented to the McKennan Park neighborhood association meeting but failed to tell the council that there was very few people at the meeting. In other words, I doubt many neighbors of McKennan Park know that there was a 1st reading on putting a butt ugly 5G tower in their park.
No where in the ordinance is 5G even mentioned.
I have noticed that the city has become very deceptive lately with its agenda item language surrounding public works and planning/zoning items. Gee, I wonder why? Oh that’s right, because this administration and majority of the council HATE OPEN AND TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT.
I hope some of my close neighbors over in the park read this post and spread the word and voice their opposition to octopus tower at the 2nd reading.
(FF 41:00)
Yes, folks, only in good old Sioux Falls would a developer complain about how he had to front a little money in legal fees and surveying (City Council Meeting, Items 16-17) after receiving some easements.
First the obvious, and replying to one of his main complaints, that while taxpayers are essentially giving him FREE land, that this gifting party should somehow also pay these fees?!
This same developer also received millions in a TIF (massive tax rebate) before the project was built. While I do complain sometimes when the council doesn’t discuss an item or answer constituent questions, I did chuckle a bit last night after this developer stood at the microphone and cried about how he had to spend a couple of grand (to receive FREE property). Their non-response to this unwarranted fit was completely appropriate. Not a single councilor, the mayor, the city attorney or any of the planning/environmental staff responded to his rant.
It reminds me of when I used to wait tables and people would want a free meal if I forgot to give them complimentary free bread. This developer has received free property and millions in tax breaks and has the nerve to complain about it?!
I think this is way past due, but at least it is moving forward;
A final draft of the mural ordinance will be brought to the whole commission in October, and the city will seek input from local artists, said Shawna Goldammer, a planning projects coordinator for the city. From there, the ordinance will be sent to the city’s legal team for recommendations. After the commission reviews it one more time, an informational meeting with the City Council will be held and then the formal adoption process begins, which Goldammer said can take about three months.Â
“It’ll be awhile before this is on the books, but we are definitely very close to at least launching it out into the world,†she said. “We hope that it grows into something that’s gonna really be great for Sioux Falls.â€
As you can see, it must go thru many hoops before it gets in front of the city council, but it looks like something could be on the books by next Spring. I’m not sure why, all they basically have to do is cross out a couple of sentences and it would be a done deal. As the ordinances are written now, businesses are NOT allowed to have murals that have words or images that promote the business because that could be construed as advertising.
I guess I look at this two ways, 1) Of course a business would want to have a mural that in some way promotes their business, in an artistic way, otherwise what is the purpose of spending the money, but 2) I have often said that businesses have a right to have a mural due to constitutional free speech rights and property rights. I have encouraged businesses to challenge it based on those constitutional rights. Recently, Northview Bait and Tackle painted a mural on its building that features fish, which technically would be in violation of the current ordinances. Owner, Matt Staab told me he welcomes a challenge to the ordinance. He may not have to worry about it now.
l3wis