Mayor TenHaken proposes extra penny sales tax to pay for stadium nobody wants

by

If you watch the mayor and representatives from the Riverline District speak at the Downtown Rotary meeting on Monday they seem to be pushing an agenda that the public needs to be SOLD on the idea that we need some kind of sports recreation facility at the location even though the online comments have been strongly against building a stadium in the area.

Once again, supposed leaders in our community know better (that’s how we ended up with an events center in the middle of nowhere) and they seemingly want to just ignore the actual opinion of residents and push another narrative that just doesn’t exist.

One of the panelists said in reference to the negative online comments against a stadium downtown that she wishes the people who approach her in public like at the grocery store (the famous line) and say they want a stadium would express those feelings online. Are Sioux Falls voters really that naive to continue to believe the grocery store poll? Maybe the reason they don’t comment online is that they don’t really exist? And why are people so opinionated at the grocery store?

The group admitted there is challenges in the area including one of the busiest train lines in the city running through it. There is also NO mention of the water issues from Drake Springs (one of the reasons the new Drake Springs pool was built to the North).

Another tidbit that was revealed at the meeting was that earnest money and a purchase agreement has been already drawn up for the land at a cost of around $9 million. What was unclear is where this $9 million was coming from and the mayor leaned towards the taxpayers of Sioux Falls would be picking up the tab. At this point not one single city councilor has spoken publicly in favor or against the project. Where is our legislative policy body on this project? Apparently in the dark. The council is turning into the old dog chained up in the basement. Maybe we should let them roam around the aisles of Sioux Falls grocery stores so they can get a real pulse on what is going on in Sioux Falls 🙁

Remember, this has all been concocted behind closed doors and maybe the reason there is very little buy in from the public is the public hasn’t been involved or informed up until this point. How did we go from 0-60 in a couple of weeks? Because this has been planned in very dark board rooms for months.

But the whopper of the day was when Mayor TenHaken suggested we do like Oklahoma City and propose an extra penny sales tax to pay for a stadium (that nobody wants);

“We are a low-tax state, and we do not have a lot of revenue sources,” he said as he gave potential examples. “I’m nervous, we’re talking about all this. But a baseball stadium’s $80 million, you want an indoor recreation space with 100,000 square feet, that’s $40 million. We’re at $150 million. How are we going to pay for this? No idea.”

First the obvious. Once an extra sales tax is approved, it never goes away or sunsets this is an incredible myth. We only have to look towards the Washington Pavilion and the 3rd penny sales tax on entertainment which was supposed to be sunsetted after the bonds were paid off, they have never gone away, and as of November 2022 the tax raised over $9 million last year. In other words, there is plenty of money in existing coffers to pay off bonds without creating a new tax. I have suggested for years that the 3rd penny be used to pay down bonds on the EC and other facilities instead we squander it on decorations for a roof that nobody looks up at.

But what makes the proposal even more troubling is this;

TenHaken compared the program to a local option sales tax, though didn’t say if he’d want to see the funds overseen by a citizen advisory board, as is done in Oklahoma City.

TenHaken isn’t comparing apples to apples with Oklahoma City which has the public weigh in heavily on the extra tax proposals with extensive public engagement and a public vote (which should be 60% in South Dakota with a taxing/bonding proposal instead of a non-binding ‘advisory vote’ like we did with the EC). Remember, the city council approved the bonding on the EC, not the voters.

What was even more startling was how the panel didn’t seem to concerned about selling the public on their idea.

I go by the old adage that if you have to be sold something you probably don’t need it. It seems the Riverline District reps and the mayor want to sell us on a project they really want (and all of the tax incentives the taxpayers will provide) but the public isn’t to keen on.

I support redeveloping the area, but the city should really only be involved with infrastructure upgrades like utilities, streets and green spaces (not facilities) and let the private sector determine it’s best purpose (which should be housing).

Leave it to an authoritarian like TenHaken to take the beneficial aspects of a bonding proposal and manipulate it to hoodwink Sioux Falls voters into approving another play palace we don’t need.

Bunker Ramp mural project becomes controversial

by

Just ask Mikey A. after he reluctantly accepted the Sistine Chapel ‘ceiling’ project. His ideas and timeline for the project got him into a lot of trouble with the Pope. It has been a mis-understood piece of art for centuries.

Fast forward to an attempt to put lipstick on a concrete pig downtown and all of a sudden a temporary mural (to only last about 18 months) has been blown way out of proportion.

The Sioux Falls Arts Council in coordination with the Visual Arts Commission and City Planning Staff put in motion a plan to have an opportunity to decorate the Bunker Ramp. As far as I can tell the planning was going smoothly. the SFAC had private funding in place and the VAC had a jurying process.

Where it hit a snag was the mayor’s office or representatives from the planning office made the decision to pull the selected winner and recommend 2nd place.

Two pieces of the puzzle that I am missing is a supposed letter sent from the VAC/SFAC to the mayor’s office offering their dissatisfaction and the image of the rejected mural concept. I doubt I will get either, especially the image which is on complete lockdown.

From what was described to me, the image was chocked full of Native American symbolism and some shirtless males. Let’s just say certain folks were worried certain folks would be offended by such imagery.

It is still hard for me to make a judgement call without seeing the image, but my guess is there is absolutely nothing offensive about it.

Just think you can walk less then a block from this location and see a statue of a dude with his shmeckel hanging out.

After the pissing match went back and forth the mural seemed to be in jeopardy, but now, the rumor is, a temporary painting will be installed at the location. Not sure what that will be or who will be paying for it.

As I said from the beginning, all this could have been avoided by simply selling advertising to DTSF businesses to advertise on a building wrap to cover the wall. It would have been paid for and we would have avoided all the controversy over shirtless native men.

As a local journalist said to me today, “This all could have been avoided with transparency.”

I think we have a winner! Maybe that is what we should paint on the side of the ramp?

Sioux Falls 6th Street Bunker Bridge began demolition today

by

As I had mentioned in the past, the project is so large that the general contractor couldn’t possibly have all the resources to complete it on their own, they would have to use sub-contractors which is common practice in the industry.

Imagine not being surprised this afternoon when I shot this photo and observed three other trucks with the same labeling begin initial demolition today. No where to be seen were the red trucks of the general. That’s right folks, we could have split this project into smaller bids with separate smaller contractors instead having a middle-man (general contractor) skimming our tax dollars.

UPDATE: Did Mayor TenHaken overrule the Visual Arts Commission?

by

UPDATE: Mural Gate is getting interesting. While I am still waiting for more details it seems the funding source for the mural may be in jeopardy. I am assuming that NO announcements will be made until this is smoothed out. The mural was to be privately funded.

Not only is PTH busy forcing the city council to do his dirty work, but apparently he also has been throwing his weight around with the VAC (Visual Arts Commission).

The commission is tasked with making recommendations to the city council and mayor when it comes to public art. They probably haven’t had this much drama since they had to determine if the Munson plaque at Phillips to the Falls was art (I wish I still had audio from that city council meeting, I think the Quen Be started crying).

At their December 20, 2022 meeting the commission picked a winner for the Bunker Ramp mural. There were 3 entries and they voted on two of them;

Jurying for the 10th Street Parking Ramp
Commissioner Boice presented the numeric rankings for the three submittals. The Commission reviewed and discussed the rankings and Commissioner Schaeffer made a motion for the Commission to select between Amber Hansen/Reyna Hernandez/Darcy Millette and Eric Vozzola. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Dickson. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioners Jamison and Hoesing voted in favor of Eric Vozzola. Commissioners Schaeffer, Lum, Dickson, and Zaijcek voted in favor of Amber Hansen/Reyna Hernandez/Darcy Millette.
Commissioner Jamison made a motion that all members of the Commission are in unanimous support of Amber Hansen/Reyna Hernandez/Darcy Millette. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hoesing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Boice will update the Commission once a final decision after consultation with the donor and the City.

The VAC handled the selection process the way they are supposed to by making sure the entries qualify for the criteria set forth and having an open and transparent vote on the selection. They even went a step further by taking a 2nd vote for unanimous consent (heck, they run their meetings tighter then the council).

Fast forward to the January 17th VAC meeting (that is posted wrong on the agenda as a Jan 11 meeting) and you will notice they had a special guest to talk about the mural selection;

• 10th Street Parking Ramp Mural, Jeff Eckhoff

What is missing from the minutes is exactly what Mr. Eckhoff told the VAC. According to my sources at the meeting the VAC was informed that the Mayor was not a fan of the VAC mural selection and the mayor instructed that they use the 2nd entry. Not sure why because I am getting conflicting accounts.

While all the artists involved are very talented, they do differ in styles. The winner(s) the VAC chose do the mural are more culturally diverse and present a lot of symbolism when it comes to Hispanic and Native American culture, while the 2nd place entry that the mayor prefers does more nature/abstract/modern commercialized work.

I don’t know what the entries look like, but as an artist I will admit all the artists involved do great work and I can understand how it would have been a difficult decision to make. But if I was voting, I would have picked what the VAC picked purely based on the complexity of their work. While Eric’s work is good, it lacks substance and doesn’t tell a story. Art should always have a message, or NOT, but there is a clear dividing line.

Now there are a lot of rumors swirling around about how this all came down (I’m working on getting more details) but I do know that the VAC leadership was not happy about how it came down and there was some blow back.

The one thing an experienced leader can do is get out of the way especially when you have a talented and capable committee to make a decision for you. But authoritarians struggle with delegation because they want to micro-manage everything. It seems the artists that were in the running were all very capable of creating a great mural, so why did a color blind graphic designer have to have a pity party?

I get it if the mayor was NOT happy about the selection, but to piss in the VAC’s cereal is not a good way to start a day.

Joe Kirby; Sioux Falls Needs a Plan

by

You ain’t kidding;

In 2018 Paul TenHaken became mayor and soon announced a concept he called “One Sioux Falls”. His intention was “to create a unified vision that people could get behind.” That goal of getting everyone on the same page was commendable. But I’m not sure the mayor’s plan lived up to its potential.

That’s because you cannot create a plan or vision for city government without full transparency. All plans will ultimately fail when introduced in the dark.

While the city pays for numerous expensive plans and studies, I am unaware of an overarching strategic vision for our city. Some current and former city council members tell me they never were involved in strategic planning for our community. And over the past couple decades, I don’t recall seeing any comprehensive and aspirational plans coming out of city hall.

That’s because there is only ONE plan and it was concocted decades ago by developers. Make the council weak by paying them off with campaign contributions, make the mayor stronger and his staff even stronger by negotiating private deals with the city in the dark.

Without an overarching plan, developers, businesses, schemers and volume-focused development officials drive growth in the city. I suspect that is how we end up adding more and more tough, low wage jobs to our community. For instance, in my view it was not in our community’s best interests for Amazon and a second slaughterhouse to arrive in town. Especially not when city leaders routinely fret about workforce availability and affordable housing.

Forward Sioux Falls, which promotes economic growth in our area, is currently putting together their version of a strategic plan for the community. Of course, I will be interested to see it. But their 2022 support for the slaughterhouse makes me wonder if the organization might be too growth focused, with inadequate attention given to quality of life. I think our community should discourage businesses and industries that tend to externalize their costs and offer low paying jobs.

Good plans not only tell you which opportunities to pursue, but also which to ignore.

It is simply growth for growth sakes and relying on the ‘trickle down’ approach to everyone else especially when it comes to jobs and housing. Our lack of quality affordable housing and living wages is eventually going to crush the Sioux Falls economy.

Our city charter says that the city council is the “policy making and legislative body” in city government. But the city council has never been given the opportunity to plan. Or perhaps better said, they have not taken that opportunity. After all, the charter also states that “all powers of the city shall be vested in the city council”.

Instead, the mayor’s office runs the show. Admittedly that may be due to the lack of separation of the legislative and executive powers in city government (see my blog on that topic). Everybody seems too busy putting out fires and dealing with routine problems to plan.

The city council has had since the early 90’s to come up with a plan after the new charter was approved and not one single councilor has lifted a finger except Janet Brekke who simply suggested the council move forward with a long range strategic plan and asked for the rest of the council to get on board. The result; They recruited a young female doctor to run against her with an endorsement from the mayor and thousands of dollars of his PAC money. I guess we know what happens to people who make suggestions on the city council.

I’m not sure the current city council has it in them to make a strategic plan, and why would they want to? They are enjoying the status quo. Let the mayor’s office plan things behind closed doors in the dark and have the council vote on the mayor’s plan hastily put forward and when things go awry, just ask for forgiveness. This is no way to run a city government or any government for that matter.

The only way a strategic plan could move forward is if the citizens specifically amended the charter requiring the council to put together a long range plan every two years. Make it a part of their duties and if they fail to do it, or take a half-ass approach the council should be fined and reprimanded or even recalled.

I think the citizens and media in this town need to stop pussy footing around and start making our city, school and county governments more accountable for their actions (or lack of action).