As people have been absentee voting, many have asked me how to vote on the amendments. Amendment ‘A’ is pretty easy to understand. Amendment ‘B’ is a little more complicated, but I will lay it out for you 1) VOTE NO 2) If this was as simple as following state law, the council would have passed this already, they did not, because it is more complicated than that 3) this would increase the number of signatures you would need to petition our city charter. It should be made easier to petition our local government not harder. This is simply an attempt to justify the questionable rules that were implemented on Triple Check the Charter. How can you apply rules to petitioning when citizens haven’t approved those rules yet? VOTE NO!
Only agenda item is a going away party for Departing Members Pauline Poletes and Robert Thimjon. They accomplished their very successful shut down of charter amendments. Party on Garth.
Sub Item #25, $136K to YMCA for after school programs and
Sub Item #26, $111 to VOA for after school programs.
I wish the merits of these four items would have been discussed in the regular meeting instead of stuffed into the consent agenda.
Item #7, Change orders, we will be handing about $1.5 million to Journey Construction for the Village on the River Bunker Ramp.
Item #20, Transfer of 2020 Retail Liquor License, with video lottery terminals, and 2020 Package Liquor License from Badlands Gaming LLC, Badlands Gaming, 1600 West Russell Street, to South Dakota Veterans Alliance Inc., 1600 West Russell Street. It looks like this deal is moving forward.
Item #25 (29-30), 2nd Reading of TIF agreement with Lloyd Companies and Sioux Steel Development. As I have said in the past this will pass. I guess councilor Stehly will be absent from this meeting and NOT voting on the issue due to previous commitments. I have said that a better approach would be to gift them the River Greenway property (so they can develop it at their expense) and give them a $10 million dollar TIF only for that redevelopment. I think it is a crying shame that local lawmakers across the country are suckered into these kind of agreements which are truly developer handouts and little else. I’m praying for an amendment, but I don’t think it will happen.
Item #26, 2nd Reading, ordinance on campaign financing and elections. I feel there will be some amendments to this item and it will be an interesting to see what is slipped in. I still think that this ordinance should be amended so it is NOT implemented until after the municipal election.
Item #27, Supplemental appropriations for police overtime pay for special events. Like I said yesterday in a post, I fully support this, but I think a discussion should have occurred with the council before the mayor’s office proposed this. It is the council’s job as laid out in charter to be the legislators, not the mayor’s office.
Item #28, Parks and Rec fee increases. You will notice that some of the biggest increases are at the Midco Aquatic Center.
Item #31, Resolution approving preliminary plan for the controversial Golden Gateway addition.
Item #32, A RESOLUTION REMOVING UNCOLLECTIBLE, DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS FROM THE RECORDS. Interesting that these accounts are confidential?
Item #34, Resolution, allowing Landscapes Unlimited to modify the noncompetition clause under the Management Agreement.
Item #35, Charter Revision Commission presents their ballot amendments. I’m urging a vote NO on amendment ‘B’ which would increase the number of signatures needed for a charter revision petition.
As I suspected from the get go, the CRC found a way to kill any meaningful legislation for the city’s April election. Oh but they did find a way to make it more difficult to petition our government;
The petitions shall contain or have attached thereto throughout their circulation the full text of the proposed charter amendment and must be signed by registered voters of the city in the number of at least 5 percent of the total number of registered voters at the last regular city election, or the number of signatures required by state law, whichever is greater.
In other words they are trying to get the voters to pass rules that they have already decided to implement on Triple Check the Charter. Yes, folks, they are applying rules that haven’t been amended yet. Isn’t that special? I also got a kick out of the attorney’s explanation on the ballot;
City Attorney’s Explanation of Amendment B: The current language is, at times, less stringent in its requirements for charter amendment than what is required by the State Constitution. Such is not permissible under State law, which requires the standards of City charter and ordinances to be at least as stringent as State law. The proposed change, as approved and submitted by the Charter Revision Commission, would ensure that the requirements set forth in the charter for voter initiation of a charter amendment are at least as stringent as those set forth in the State Constitution, thus satisfying State law.
What they are basically saying is we MUST vote yes to satisfy State Law. My question is why aren’t we doing that already? And why are we voting on it? I’ll give you my explanation, you can vote NO on this, there is NO requirement we follow state law on this because we are a Home Rule Charter city, we make the rules when it comes to OUR elections. The SOS doesn’t run our local elections, and he shouldn’t. Don’t believe this poppycock, it is just a scare tactic to make it more difficult to petition our government in Sioux Falls and little else. They are trying to hoodwink the voters into passing this, because they know the requirement is not needed.
I vaguely remember the chair of CRC saying at the beginning of the 2019 meetings that it is the CRC’s job to make sure nothing harmful gets on the ballot that could have unintended consequences if passed. Kettle meet black.
I sometimes wonder when I am watching the CRC meetings if it is an actual citizen board meeting or a Shakesperean Tragedy.
They first started by killing the majority of the council approving bonds. They actually amended it so that it would be 5 votes (of the council) instead of 6 (which I could go along with since it takes the mayor out of breaking a tie). It failed in a 3-1 vote. Yes ONE vote killed it, the chair voted against it, and they needed 4 votes to pass. Hajek recused herself due to a conflict with her husband being a bond attorney. I think she would have voted against it to, so it was dead whether she was recused or not.
Then they wanted to change this in charter to make it harder to do petition drives that change the charter;
The petitions shall contain or have attached thereto throughout their circulation the full text of the proposed charter amendment and must be signed by registered voters of the city in the number of at least 5 percent of the total number of registered voters at the last regular city election, or the number of signatures required by state law, whichever is greater.
They basically think we need to follow state law when it comes to our city business in handling petition drives proposing charter changes. Bogus. The governor’s election has NOTHING to do with city charter. That number is over 1,200 more signatures as of the last election. They say they are clarifying the language to follow state law. So I wonder why they think they can try to change the ordinance in the middle of a petition drive? That has always been my beef. They are applying these proposed changes to Triple Check the Charter before the rule has been changed by the voters. Now they are trying to change the rules that they are already applying. Huh? I know, confusing as all get out. The rule should be changed before it can be applied.
All 5 members approved this being on the ballot. We will be informing citizens that this is bad and encourage them to vote against it. Charter change petition drives should be based on city elections. That is really what they should have proposed for a change and let the do-nothing AG and SOS try to change it (my guess is they would not lift a finger). Maybe I am talking out of my ass (I am told that a lot) so please correct me if I am missing something here.
They reject Councilor Brekke’s proposal to put in charter that the council sets forth a strategic plan (Member Zylstra voted to put on the ballot, all other members rejected it);
Adoption of a long range strategic master plan created by the City Council
CRC members basically say the council already has the power to do this (which is true) and it shouldn’t be in the charter as a stringent requirement. This is exactly why it NEEDS to be in the charter, it would force the council to do their jobs instead of letting the mayor be the legislative body and proposing plans. According to charter already, the council is the one that proposes ordinance changes and legislation and the mayor’s job is really pretty simple, run the day to day operations and manage city employees.
Another meeting where the CRC is the Judge, the Jury and the Executioner. I will clarify again, their only job is to place legal changes on the ballot, it is NOT their job to determine whether or not these are good or bad if they pass. That decision is up to the voters. They seem to be making the determination that voters will pass something bad unknowingly if they allow it on the ballot. It is up to voters to determine whether or not something is ‘bad’ for them, not a volunteer group of folks appointed by the mayor. They are chosen for their legal and management expertise (I assume) that is what they are supposed to be determining, if these proposals are LEGAL and NOT HARMFUL to citizens. I haven’t seen a proposal yet this year that is not within the constraints of the law, or harmful to citizens. They are killing these proposals based on what is harmful to the 1% in our community, and not what is good for our whole community. I have been thoroughly disgusted with the actions of the CRC this year.
They also make some action to change language on the city website about their duties. This was an extremely confusing discussion, because I guess they already made the change, but no one said what it said before or what it was changed to. City Attorney Kooistra mumbled something, but I was still confused.
Towards the end, the most interesting part was before public input. Instead of the chair inviting people up for 5 minutes of public input, he first asks the dais if there was an ‘OBJECTION’ to opening the floor to public input before allowing it. No one on the dais responds (why would they?!)
What the F*CK!? It’s on the agenda Chief Kills an Amendment. By state law that recently changed, you have to have it, whether you object or not. I would think a chair who specializes as a government affairs attorney would know state law? The problem is he ‘thinks’ he knows, and why he has choked the life out of all the proposals that have come forth, except one that actually hurts the petitioning process.
Councilor Brekke ends the S-Show by telling the CRC she will continue to work on her proposal for strategic planning. The CRC, or at least one member, Hajek, seems to think the mayor has a right to a strategic plan also. Once again, certain people on the CRC don’t understand that is NOT his job, it is the job of the Council. I am often amazed that people who have been involved with local government for a very long time, really don’t grasp how it is supposed to work. As Archie Bunker would say, “Jeesh!”
The meeting ends humorously by the chair telling us the CRC and himself have been ‘open and transparent’ from the beginning about how they would conduct their business (laying the groundwork of how things would be killed). He also gives a nod to my commentary (online). So now that the chair has brought up this ‘open and transparent’ process I would assume all emails and phone calls between CRC members over the last several months will be released to the public?
LOL.
The scripted meetings by the Director (the chair) made it blatantly obvious that many ‘behind the scenes’ conversations were had.
I would like to congratulate the CRC this year for their continued obsession with killing progressive and constructive ideas.
Update on Legislative Priorities for the 2019 session and a presentation on Walkability by Councilor Stehly (I’m not sure what her presentation is about). But I see they continue to peddle the perceived benefits of TIFs;
6. The Sioux Falls City Council supports tax increment financing (TIF), an economic development tool that has led to millions of dollars in increased property value, benefitting both the state as a whole and the local entities sponsoring the districts, while at the same time maintaining the integrity of the process.
I say ‘perceived’ because we have NEVER gotten evidence that it has benefitted us.
Item #4, Annual city employee awards. This is always a fun one to watch.
Item #7, Approval of Contracts, Placement of MLK sculpture by Porter Williams at the refurbished Van Eps Park.
Item #15, 2nd Reading, Ordinance, $41 Million in bonds for wastewater. This is a series of several bonds over the next couple of years. I also want to remind people we should have started this process 5 to 10 years ago, but the previous mayor wanted to bond for play palaces instead and the public works director fell at his feet. I hope that at least one councilor asks him if he ever urged the previous king of Sioux Falls to get moving on this.
Item #16, 2nd Reading, Liquor license changes, This is going to be fun to watch. I have a feeling it is going to be a lively conversation. You know my feeling, we need to get rid of ‘lifetime’ liquor licenses.
Item #20, Pay Scales for City Council appointed staff. I won’t go into great detail, but it amazes me how much these people are being paid, and ironically, the staff that does the majority of the work is paid the least. I have said they could ‘trim the heard’ a bit and have less staff. I would first make the operations director the clerk also, and have only one assistant clerk. I would also eliminate the legislative/budget analyst since we pay the Municipal League already lobbying fees to do that job. Or maybe eliminate that fee and keep that person.
The hammer continues to drop at the CRC. As you can see from this graphic, they have been very good at killing stuff;
Oh, but they are going to get something done, making it more difficult to do a petition drive when it comes to the changing the Charter;
The petitions shall contain or have attached thereto throughout their circulation the full text of the proposed charter amendment and must be signed by registered voters of the city in the number of at least 5 percent of the total number of registered voters at the last regular city election, (change) or the number of signatures required by state law, whichever is greater.
When I talked to fellow city government nerd about this the other day, they said ‘If it gets on the ballot, we will make sure it doesn’t pass.’ The irony of it would be the mantra of the CRC and saying they don’t like to put stuff on the ballot because people just vote ‘YES’ on it without researching it. I will guaran-F’ing-tee you that if they put this on the ballot, we will make sure the public is VERY informed about what they are trying to do and it will be fun to watch the ONLY thing they approve for the ballot fails, or at least we hope it fails.
I also find this discussion curious;
Clarification of Duties of the Charter Revision Commission on its Webpage
Huh? This is what is listed on the city website;
The commission may deliver a report to the city election authorities framing and proposing amendments to the Sioux Falls Home Rule Charter. The commission holds at least one public meeting each calendar year for the purpose of receiving recommendations from the public regarding revisions to the charter and to take action upon any matters before the commission relating to proposed charter revisions.
It will be interesting to hear what changes they want to make.
l3wis 
