In the dark of the night?

by

Will Huether veto the admin repeal in the dark of the night, or is he really taking his time to decide whether or not he wants to waste his political capital on a veto? He could also be just dragging his feet to as close to the October due date so the council couldn’t try to stop it again;

On Wednesday, Huether issued a statement saying he will hold off on responding to that vote, though he did not give a specific timeline.

Huether said he “recognizes the interest and importance of the project and also celebrates the due diligence and sacrifice put forth by the city’s project team and the city council.”

Don’t expect a press conference either way.

Sioux Falls City Council repeals admin building bond, 5-3, mayor could still veto

by

635918415726084068-Exterior

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.

How to Bash a Building, July 12, 2016

by

[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.

Prominent Developer in Sioux Falls sends an email to city councilors ‘whining’ about how he has been treated by the Mayor and the Development Office

by

IMAG0088_1  IMAG0089_1

The wife of the developer and the mayor having an ‘engaging conversation’ in HyVee’s parking lot (Wednesday morning, 7-13-2016). When was the email sent to councilors? About 2 PM, that same day.

I won’t publish the entire email diatribe from the developer, his name, or the project he refers to, but I will give you some highlights of this seemingly ‘staged’ email.

“The administration eventually conceded that they could provide up to $15 million in bonding authority but “not a penny more”. On December 21, 2015 the City and the 2 private partners received the preliminary budget from — —- Construction. The — —- — structure was estimated to cost $17.3 million . . . . However instead of revising their budget to reflect this new reality the administration insisted that they would require the private sector to give them at least $2 million of the proposed private TIF which left us short by the same amount.”

He was basically saying the project cost jumped $2 million from what was originally proposed by the city, and they were not going to include that extra amount in the TIF. But where the email gets interestingly faux is towards the end;

“For the next 3 months the community develop office worked diligently with us to identify other sources of financing and or grants. We even attempted to find HUD affordable housing funds to help offset the joint budget shortfall.  At that point in late March the Mayor weighed in and decided that any additional monies needed to help offset the budget shortfall was considered “corporate welfare” and asked us to terminate the negotiations immediately.”

Corporate Welfare?! HUD Money?! LMAO! First off, the mayor is the queen of corporate welfare, this is the same guy who gave his tennis center $500K and then slapped his name on it and blockaded the parking lot. Secondly, HUD money for this project IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY AN OPTION!

“As I read this I realize it sounds as though I am whining. And yes I will admit there is a little bit in here. We, as developers, know the risks that every project may not work just like we thought going into it. But I think it is important for you all as policy makers to know the facts of what actually happened and not be swayed by current requests and excuses for an increase in budget. This project is too important for the future of —- to let politics get in the way of it succeeding. Thanks for letting me vent a little and feel free to contact me if you need any more additional information.”

While I will say, he is probably telling the truth about the process and numbers in his email, saying he is whining, is laying it on a bit thick. When on God’s green earth has a prominent developer in Sioux Falls given a rat’s behind about what the council thinks? They have always taken the back door approach through the administration and his minions in the development and planning offices.

Not sure what is cooking, but I suspect the mayor has a few of his ingredients in this stew.

Absurd, Ridiculous and Unethical

by

1-Urban-Chicken-Coop

That’s sure nice of Mr. Fox to be watching over us.

I suppose I could come up with a few more words to describe the recent ‘review’ of the 300 Building, but I think we will just start with those three. Having the EXACT team of private developers/contactors that was assembled to build a proposed NEW city administration building do the review of the viability of the 300 building is, well, a gigantic conflict of interest. But where it gets ridiculous is when the director of Central Services says they only used blueprints to determine it wasn’t viable. Huh? It would be like buying a used home based on the same thing. A walk through and home inspection usually occurs on said property. But what is even more absurd is the notion that a ‘third party consultant’ looked at the review the conflict of interest contractors put together and they agreed with it. But we have to leave that ‘national’ consultant ‘anon’ to protect their reputation. WTH? If they have a great reputation they should stand behind the review. Most likely this imaginary consultant doesn’t exist and their report was filed in the same place the event center siding report was. Never-Neverland.

As I was driving by city hall late this morning I noticed a person from the ‘review’ committee leaving city hall with a big binder in their hand, dress rehearsal for Tuesday’s informational meeting must of wrapped up early.

Whether you are for a new building, remodeling an existing building or against the project all together isn’t the issue here, the issue is the conflicts and the ethics (or lack thereof). Just look what the review contractors have made so far and what they are set to be paid if they build the NEW building;

Koch Hazard (Architect)

Phase 1 – $85,000 already paid

Phase 2 – 4.85% of the Cost of Work – as defined in 6.1 total cost to the owner to construct all elements of the project and shall include Construction Manager’s general condition costs, fee, and contingency.

*We also reimburse all out of pocket expenses for the contractor (no markup)

PHASE 2 COMPENSTATION: 21.9 million dollars (project cost) * .0485 = $1,062,000 (NOT COUNTING REIMBURSEMENTS FOR OOP)

Henry Carlson (CMAR):

Phase 1 – $43,288 already paid

Phase 2 – Construction phase – 3.5% of the cost of the work including the construction manager’s contingency, general conditions, and work in the GMP – this is the construction manager’s fee

PHASE 2 COMPENSATION: 21.9 million dollars (project cost) *.035 = $766,500

Of course they don’t support remodeling the 300 building, how much more blatant and rigged could we get? It seems if it was not for public projects, Koch Hazard would be out of business these days. Not only should the presentation of the review NOT be allowed on Tuesday, an ethics complaint should be filed against the director(s) that made such an ignorant decision, and if it was at the directive of the mayor, he should be brought up on ethics violations also.

Not only is city government getting more predictable, they are getting blatantly ridiculous at the same time.