UPDATE: New Sioux Falls City Council out to lunch

by

UPDATE: A new city councilor reached out and told me they have a policy of not using specific names that are revealed in public input. While I understand if it is a baseless accusation, this is factual.

It did not take long for the new city council to start ignoring me. LOL. I was aware that the city council must amend minutes, but I thought I would send the question to the city clerk first (you will enjoy his response). Then I forwarded the entire message to the city council. As I pointed out, they are using my real name in the minutes and not a general term like ‘Constituent’ so they should use the real name of the councilor I mentioned, Marshall Selberg.

Not one single councilor responded, meaning they have no intention of amending. You do realize by ignoring my request and not changing the minutes means you are just a part of the cover up. Just sayin’.

I sometimes wonder who is giving councilors legal advice . . .

ORIGINAL EMAIL;

Hello Jermery,

I noticed in the minutes for the meeting last week it said this under public input;

‘Scott Ehrisman spoke on TIFs, development & project costs, and a previous Councilor not living in the district he represented.’

I would like the minutes AMENDED at the next meeting so it says;

‘Scott Ehrisman spoke on TIFs, development & project costs, and a previous Councilor, Marshall Selberg, not living in the district he represented.’

I clearly stated Mr. Selberg’s name, and would like that added to the minutes.

Thank You,

Scott L. Ehrisman

CITY CLERK’S INITIAL RESPONSE;

Good afternoon,

The minutes will remain accurate and as drafted.  Only City Council can amend them at this point.

Jermery J. Washington, City Clerk // City of Sioux Falls

MY FORWARDED EMAIL TO CITY COUNCIL;

Hello Councilors,

I requested from the city clerk an amendment to the meeting minutes of last week’s regular meeting (see my original email at bottom).

He has informed me that the council has to amend (see below). So I am requesting an amendment.

I clearly stated Marshall Selberg’s name and it should be reflected in the record as I said it. For example it doesn’t say ‘A constituent spoke . . .’ It states my written name. I stated the previous councilor’s name, and it needs to be reflected in the record AS my name is clearly reflected in the record.

Thank You,

Scott L. Ehrisman

Sioux Falls City Council Tidbits

by

At the informational on Wednesday council got some updates on our new transit provider (FF 19:00). The Planning Director told council that last year the legislature permitted agencies like Dakotabilities and Lifescape to take a 100% reimbursement on Medicade for transit services. Jeff asked if the city would be repaid that money and the agencies said they are using the money and they are only getting 80% from the state right now. Hopefully in the future the Feds will reimburse us for Paratransit rides.

SANDFORD WELLNESS CENTER

At the regular council meeting Wednesday night the council pulled the item that will fund the fitness center we are buying from Sanford for $9 million. (FF: 8:30);

A motion was made by Council Member Merkouris and seconded by Council Member Soehl to approve Sub-Item 5, Parks/Recreation: Offer to Purchase Commercial Real Estate and Asset Agreement, 24-0070, Sanford Wellness Center; Sanford Medical Center; $9,000,000.
Roll call vote to approve. 7 Yes: Basye, Cole, Merkouris, Sigette, Soehl, Spellerberg, Barranco; 1 No: Thomason. Motion Passed.

During the discussion, Jeff mentions that Sanford will have to lease back the property until January 1st until the city takes it over. Sanford sent club members an email;

Valued member,  

We have some brief updates to share regarding the timeline for the proposed purchase of Sanford Wellness Center Tea-Ellis by the City of Sioux Falls. Following final approval from the City Council at this week’s meeting, Mayor TenHaken signed the purchase agreement with a tentative closing date later this fall.

We acknowledge and appreciate that this approval represents a major change for our members along with some temporary uncertainty as details are worked out. With that in mind, we continue to reiterate and reassure you that nothing will change with your Sanford Wellness Center membership at this time.

Here are a some additional details:

  • The purchase process will move forward with an expected closing date within the next three months.
  • On the closing date, the City will officially own the building; however, we will continue to operate Tea-Ellis as a Sanford Health facility until the City is prepared to take over operations.
    • Tentatively, the City will take over in late 2024 and no later than Jan. 1, 2025.
    • This purchase does not include our Oxbow location, which will remain a Sanford Health facility.
  • The City’s next steps include developing plans for operations as well as membership and programming options.

Throughout the purchase and transition period, we continue to welcome questions and conversations. To help address some of your most frequently asked questions so far, we have the following resources available:

  • An FAQs page has been added to the Wellness Center website.
  • Members can also email SHWC_SiouxFalls@sanfordhealth.org with questions.
  • Posters with our question submission QR code have been placed at Oxbow and Tea-Ellis and are available for anyone to ask a question.
    • Answers to these questions are primarily available on the FAQs page referenced above.

We look forward to sharing more details with our members in the coming months.

Thank you for your patience, and importantly, for choosing Sanford Wellness Center to be part of your health journey.

Be Well, 

Mike Davidson, General Manger, Sanford Wellness Center
Scott Hettenbach, Director, Sports Performance and Wellness Centers

I also found it interesting that Thomason voted against the measure after asking about membership fees. I have a question into Richard asking him why he voted NO and wait to hear back from him.

You can also listen to my public input about the Dakota Scout becoming the legal paper for the city and during public input I said this;

Scott Ehrisman spoke on TIFs, development & project costs, and a previous Councilor not living in the district he represented.

This was in the notes, notice they didn’t put the name of the councilor in the minutes, I said the name, Marshall Selberg. Sneaky. I should ask the clerk’s office to amend the minutes.

Sioux Falls City Councilor Merkouris wants you to know he loves you and the CRC keeps beating a dead, dead, dead, horse

by

While I rant and rave about transparency and city government, sometimes a councilor lifts a finger. Merkouris sponsored and got passed this city ordinance last night (FF: 44:00, Item #10);

The proposal requires council approval of contract that are in excess of $100,000 per vendor, for each calendar year. Those contracts involving the expenditure of funds less than $100,000 will be noticed on the agenda. The proposal requires that all contract subject to council approval be delivered to the City Clerk and placed on the consent agenda. Contracts/agreements that are subject to the state’s executive session laws will no require council approval. Existing ordinances that duplicate SDCL are removed.

While I have stated before this a good ‘first step’ in opening up the contracts to the public, they need to make more bold changes moving forward.

But it was Rich’s testimony before the approval vote that stuck with me. Rich told a story about how his wife tells him he needs to tell his daughters he loves them, and he replies, that he provides for them, so they should know he loves them, and his wife tells him that you still have to say it. Rich uses this example to point out that the public doesn’t always know what is going on unless you articulate it (TELL THEM). He nails it! We can assume our government is open because ‘good people’ sit on the dais, but unless you actually tell us what is going on, we can assume anything.

Short-timer and world class vitamin salesman who decided not to run for a 2nd term suggested that the $100K was too low and it should be $500k because the council is too busy to be signing all these checks. Heck, Alex, why not make it $20 million so we can build more overpriced bridges for whiney babies who check their ‘decorum’ at the mayor’s office front door.

The CounTcilor’s term on the council has been truly befuddling. He truly proved a dead person could beat Stehly, because his actions and policy legislation has been truly DEAD.

CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION MEMBER ZYLSTRA WON’T CONCEDE UNTIL THE MAYOR GETS A RAISE

CRC member, Carl Zylstra proposed today at the CRC meeting that a wage commission be formed to study wage increases for councilors and the mayor and gives them the power to increase their salary (but not during their term). While I would say a study would be nice, not in this case. The inflationary increases have worked well and keep politics out of the pay increase, in fact, I think the mayor got over a $10K raise last year just from inflationary increases. It works and the voters agreed almost 2 years ago, they are fine with what the council is getting paid and the current setup. Leave it alone.

While I might agree that the councilors do deserve more pay, they should have to punch into a clock instead and get paid hourly, because some of these folks would make $100K a year while some of them would be lucky to collect a paycheck (they should be handing out oxygen tanks instead).

“SELBERG! You are late again! And Paul, tuck in your shirt! And where are your slip free shoes?! All Stars?! This isn’t a 1976 meet and greet with the Globetrotters!”

The argument is that in order to attract good candidates the pay has to be higher. Really? All the insider deals isn’t enough for them? Also, if the pay is so bad, maybe we should have a cap on how much a council candidate can spend on a campaign?* Maybe it should be 50% of their annual pay? I don’t think anyone spending $100K for a job that pays $20K a year is to concerned about the pay, after all, this is public service 🙁

*I have often thought the city council should implement some campaign finance rules. I’m sorry, but spending 5X the amount on a campaign this job pays in a year tells me you are more concerned about winning and less about what it pays.

City of Sioux Falls claims they have a legal obligation to raise our property taxes

by

Sometimes what you say is as important as what you do. In the administration’s yearly stab at raising our property taxes (even with property values and housing costs thru the roof) they are now using language that says we basically have a legal obligation to raise your taxes (Item #61):

Background & Objective: This ordinance shows the budgets of the Governmental Funds for the year ending December 31, 2024, and the required revenues and sources.

Notice the word ‘required’ added to the description. There is NO requirement that the city raises our property taxes. Budgets are fluid when you are proposing them, and the city council can amend that budget so an increase would NOT be required.

Within the actual ordinance itself, the language is even more suggestive;

That the sums of money that are listed in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance are appropriated to meet the lawful expenses and liabilities of the City in fiscal year 2024.

So does the city council have a legal requirement to pass this? NO. The only requirement they have is to either pass it or not and adjust the budget accordingly. They do have a choice in the matter and to suggest they MUST legally pass this to uphold the PROPOSED 2024 budget is a load of hogwash.

This will likely pass with maybe 1 or 2 dissenters, but I hope a couple of the dissenters get together and have an amendment discussion about removing the language that suggests they must LEGALLY vote for the increase.

Over the years when I have seen past administrations pull this stunt where they tell councilors they have a legal obligation to vote YES I ask the question? Then why are they even bothering to vote if they have NO choice?

Cut the crap! There is NO legal requirement to raise our taxes, but there is a legal requirement that our city council acts within the best interest of the public’s coffers, and with one of the worst economic downturns since 2008 and housing costs skyrocketing, that best interest would be to vote NO on an increase and let the administration make the cuts to the budget THEY proposed. Then let them have a poutfest presser calling out the council for doing their due diligence.

MORE FUN WITH THE COUNCIL TUESDAY NIGHT

The council will also get an update on the disposal of the zoo mounts at the informational meeting, then they will be sucked into a series of executive sessions in which I’m sure they will be told they only have ONE option on the matter (because it is easier to bully councilors behind closed doors). It will also be interesting to see if the presentation includes any recommendations from experts.

During the regular meeting they will also be discussing creating an arts commission (Item #63). This is another initiative by the mayor’s office that has been shrouded in secrecy. While I support the concept of more public arts coordination with the city NOT under the current management.

The Argument to Allow E2’s on the Rec Trail hasn’t changed in 5 years

by

On December 18, 2018, the Sioux Falls City Council passed the first E-Bike ordinance only allowing E1’s. Listen to the testimony for allowing E2’s also (FF: 27:00). Folks, nothing has changed in 5 years! The only thing that has changed is that E-Bikes have become safer, lighter, more affordable and technologically advanced. Just look at this ride, the battery is so powerful you can use it as a power source (it has an inverter) and can be ridden full throttle and full headlamp for 105 miles on one charge.

Councilors Starr and Stehly tried to amend it to allow all E-Classes and were voted down. Starr’s argument holds true today, this is an opportunity for people with mobility issues (old folks) to get some exercise.

E-Bikes are not going away, in fact I think in 10 years you will probably be hard pressed to find a traditional bike in a storefront and E1’s will be considered dinosaurs.

I had to chuckle a bit during public input, former Mayor Rick Knobe suggested they put signs on the rec trail that inform people to be ‘courteous’. LOL. He got his wish.