SF City Council

Overlook Café Contract appears to be a ‘done deal’ before council even approves it

Okay, I will be the first to admit, Stensland Dairy was the only company to bid on the Café contract, so it would seem inevitable that they would get the contract. They also have a very good reputation and I’m sure they will do a good job.

But what if the only bid was ‘Bob’s Taco Cart’? Would the city automatically give the contract to them? Probably not.

I found it ironic at the Feb 20th Parks Board meeting Stensland already had a menu (with pricing) done and a Catering agreement with an independent chef before they approved the contract. As the Parks Board has stated in the past, their approvals are ONLY preliminary, the City Council has to approve the final contract. They also will get approval next week on a beer and wine license.

So I guess if you are the only bidder, have a menu ready to go and a alcohol license before the contract is approved by the council, they have no choice to approve it? Talk about getting the cart in front of the horse. I think it would be funny to send a message to city administrators (parks, licensing, planning etc.) and reject the contract based solely on the fact that they didn’t go to the council first before doing everything else.

Half the Sioux Falls City Council & Mayor dying on the Plurality hill

I’ve seen certain members of our city council die on some pretty stupid hills over the past decade, but defending a majority vote for city councilors in a probable runoff, a previous 20 year rule, that changed in a sneaky amendment move by a couple of outgoing councilors that had indigestion that day is pretty lame.

The other 4 councilors (who were awake for the working session) have a solution. If you are too chickensh*t to change the rule with a basic vote of the council, we will leave it up to the citizens (who most of them don’t even know it changed or what the rule was to begin with);

“You saw how we’re split on this issue and how it should be handled, so let’s let the people of Sioux Falls decide,” Starr told the Argus Leader Wednesday.

Besides the fact that the rule worked for 20 years, most ‘intelligent’ people know that by pushing for runoffs in a council race you will eliminate grassroots candidates who won’t have the money, time or resources to run the full race. It will also cost the taxpayers more for an election that will only draw a ‘fake’ majority. This is really why councilors Erpenbach and Rolfing pushed for this, they don’t want ‘regular’ folks running for council, they only want those connected to the ‘club’. If you have ever noticed, the council candidates that are recruited by the elite in town (Soehl, Selberg, etc.) are usually shrews for big development and do little to improve the lives of the working class of our city. They contribute very little to us, and a lot to their campaign contributors. Grassroots candidates (who are lucky enough to win) represent the citizenry.

Neither Soehl or Selberg say they’re eager to revisit the issue. Soehl said he’s interested in what the public’s feelings are, but a special election could be seen as another attempt to tinker with election rules.

“I certainly want to follow the wishes of the public, but what I object to a bit is the council trying to change election standards every two years,” he said. “

Blah, Blah, Blah. The rule was in place for 20 years! The rule change hasn’t even been used yet. No harm, no foul. Change it back, most people wouldn’t even know it was changed for two years since it hasn’t even been used. I know Curt, you forgot to mention that in your statement.

Selberg questions the need to hold a special election considering the council set the majority standard in 2017 and debated the matter once again just this month.

“We still need to let this breathe a little bit before we’re out there trying to change it again,” he said.

Breathe about what? A rule change that hasn’t even been used and was fine for 20 years without ONE SINGLE CITIZEN complaint! Just because Rolfing forgot his TUMS for a council meeting is no reason to change a 20 year rule that has worked well.

I hate to use the words ‘Brain Dead’ but sometimes I wonder. Why die on this hill?

Sioux Falls City Council Working Session

Well about 50% of our council decided to show up and actually contribute to the meeting. While Brekke, Stehly, Neitzert and Starr shared some budgetary ideas (we will get to that in a moment) the other four had little to say. Soehl and Kiley didn’t even bother to show up, Selberg said he was basically just there to ‘listen’ (he is one of the laziest city councilors I have ever seen) and Erickson admitted she was working on her ideas with the administration and wasn’t going to show her cards. Brekke called her out on it and wondered why she wasn’t going to share.

As for ideas that were shared;

• Stehly offered many great ideas including cleaning up our core neighborhoods with tax rebate incentives and eliminating project TRIM and putting that under the city’s forestry department (something both of us have been suggesting for over a decade).

• Brekke talked about long term strategic planning and possibly hiring an outside mediator to assist with it (that was a funny exchange with Erickson who suggested the council’s note taker staff could do that).

• Starr focused on the need for workforce development.

• Neitzert suggested (after making fun of the Denty’s crappy location-LOL) that we work on policy to make our city more walkable with safer streets.

While I was happy to see HALF of the council contribute to this working session, it seems the other half (who include the chair and vice-chair) were out to lunch.

Sioux Falls City Council Agenda, Feb 26-27, 2019

City Council Informational Meeting, 3:30 PM (Carnegie), 2/26

Besides an update on of Fire Codes, we will finally get to hear what is going on with the collapsed wall by Sherman Park. There seems to be some ‘missing pieces’ behind the scenes. You know like that ‘missing’ NO mow list the Parks department had. They seem to missing a lot of things these days . . . like how the fire got started at Elmwood. It’s been a couple of months and we still have NO IDEA how a ‘shed’ caught on fire?

City Council/Minnehaha County Joint Meeting, 5 PM (Carnegie), 2/26

Another wedding barn looking for approval in the quasi-judicial-no-mans-land-of-joint-jurisdiction. Or is it a Funeral Barn? This should involve some interesting testimony, the neighbors are not happy about wedding bands and DJ’s. Maybe if we allow them to make requests they can come to an agreement?

City Council Working Session, 1 PM (Carnegie), 2/27

The council will discuss the 2020 city budget. I’m sure a lot will be solved in an hour and a half.

There is also some interesting topics that will be proposed and discussed in March by the city council. I don’t have all the details right now, but it has to do with MORE open government and MORE transparency. And it ain’t coming from the Mayor’s office.

Mayor TenHaken apologizes for ‘Whipping the Vote’ comment

During Tuesday night’s city council meeting Mayor TenHaken asked councilor Brekke to ‘Whip the Vote’ (FF: 1:02). It didn’t go over well with Brekke. She made it clear to him that’s not how things work (in municipal government). The council has the right to bring legislation forward before the meeting or to ask for a reconsideration during the meeting. Brekke had already talked to her fellow councilors about the plurality ordinance in advance, when it failed she tried to amend it. This happens on the fly.

While it is a positive thing that PTH realized he was in the wrong and apologized to Brekke (I guess in a public setting) it still doesn’t change the fact that we have a very partisan City Administrator. City government doesn’t work like Washington, there are distinct differences. It is a non-partisan form of government set up to serve all involved, the taxpayers of our city. We don’t want them to vote on ‘party lines’ because there isn’t any, but seems for the last several years the councilors belong to either the Developer Class Party or the Citizen Party – a terrible divide.

This goes back to the mayor not knowing his roles and duties under charter. He is the city administrator in charge of making sure the city operates smoothly within the budget set forth. In other words, he is the employee manager. It is NOT his job to set policy. He should not even have voted on the ordinance. It should have just failed on a tie. I think if the mayor wants to get involved in policy votes he needs to explain his vote. He knew well in advance that he might have to break the tie, he also expressed to the media he would probably vote NO if the opportunity did arise. So tell us why? I don’t think he knew why, because it was just another vengeance vote with the other 4 councilors. A horrible way to set policy, I’m sorry to say.