Notice Director Cotter talking about how the system is malfunctioning because of the high level of minerals in the water . . . then he says that the water then has to be discharged in the the sanitary sewer (this was going on during the summer and not now).
How does this tie to the capacity of the current water reclamation plant?
Rough estimates from doing engineering research is that if this system is running at full capacity during the summer (pumping cool water) and not simply discharging the warm water back into the well, as intended (but back into the sanitary sewer) it would be approximately discharging 300 gallons a minute, which equates to about 14,000 homes in Sioux Falls a day.
We are finally getting an update on the Village on the River Project (maybe they will tell us where they are hiding the liquor license?)
We are also getting a presentation on the council’s trip the National League of Cities conference in LA. It will be followed by a slideshow by Councilor Selberg of pictures he took in LA in front of exotic cars.
Item #28, 2nd Reading, Ordinance to eliminate city drone regulations (FAA has it’s own regs). Like 5G, it seems the Feds have a say in this matter. While I understand the FAA controlling airspace, who protects our privacy on the ground? Also, if there no longer is city drone regs, who will enforce the FAA regs? Who do you call if you see a violation? Good question. Will our local police be mandated to enforce FEDERAL regs?
Item #36, 1st Reading, Ordinance to restructure the Audit Committee. Here’s a concept, why don’t we hire some permanent people and get the department functioning again at full capacity.
Item #43, Resolution, Authorize using a Construction Manager at Risk for new Water Reclamation Expansion. Interesting the city is authorizing the use of CMAR, and lining up Bond Counsel, yet we have hired NO ONE to actually build the place.
Item #44, Resolution, Revisiting the street vacation for Lifescape in the VA neighborhood. I found this line interesting;
Testimony in support of said petition has been heard, and no opposition hereto was voiced.
Is the neighborhood aware they are trying to sneak this back in?
The more we look into the property tax reductions over the past ten years, the more questions we have. While we are still researching this, some things that stick out so far;
How was the mayor(s) (Munson & Huether) able to sign off on these, through the Planning Department without the review of the city council? Or even the County Commissions and School District? Were there any state laws violated?
One of the biggest recipients was involved in many LLC’s and ownership groups related to Legacy Development. Ironically one of the persons who would have known about the reductions, Daren Ketchum, now works for Legacy.
Many of the recipients are long time established, successful Sioux Falls businesses, like Raven & Gage brothers. Why would they need tax incentives?
Some of the recipients also received TIFs on top of the reduction, for example Washington Square.
Ironically Midco received a 2018 reduction of $129K. This is just a year after announcing a sponsorship of our Aquatic Center.
Did the TenHaken administration decide to blow the lid off of this to 1) wash there hands of the practice and 2) to see if the media will do some digging around? COS Erica Beck worked in the Planning office when some of these reductions were handed out.
Like I said, we are still researching the ‘many’ connections between the reduction recipients and the previous administration and will have more findings coming soon.
As I mentioned in my 2019 predictions, I would like to see several petitions taken out this year. I feel if a citizen ran committee is put together we can write several petitions at once, and circulate them all at the same time to cut down on the circulation work. This of course is my ‘Dream List’. Not sure if the right amount of sigs could be gathered and if so, people would vote for them;
Major Changes to the Home Rule Charter. I’m still on the fence about how much I would like to change Home Rule, but I do know that the city council needs to have more power. They need to be the one vetting all legislation and ordinance changes, and they need to be setting the budget, not the mayor.
Basing water and sewer rates on inflation, not on whims.
Ending the TIF program in Sioux Falls. As we saw again today, building permit records were broken again for the 6th year in a row. Development DOES NOT need subsidizing by the taxpayers, they are doing quite well on their own.
Require Directors and Managers who work in Emergency positions within the city to be Sioux Falls Citizens.
Elect the Parks Board to 4-year terms in districts. I would even be okay with paying them a per meeting supplement.
Apply a ticket fee to every ticket sold at the Events Center. Not sure what would be reasonable, but I think $5 would be a good starting point, with a review of the fee every 2 years. The fee would be directly put in the CIP to go towards paying the EC bonds. While this may only generate $2-3 Million per year, its better than what we have now, which is $0.
Require the city to trim boulevard trees. This is doable if you put it on a reasonable rotation. As we are seeing with the Emerald Ash problem, the city DOES have the resources to do this.
Require the city to pay up to 50% of sidewalk repairs adjacent to boulevard. Citizen could pay for the remainder through a property tax increase over a period of 5 years.
Make the city attorney position an elected position for a 4-year term with NO term limits. I think this would keep the attorney’s office from becoming a political pawn for the mayor, it would also help the council to get fair advice on legislation. This person would also have the power to hire their staff, such as assistant attorneys and paralegals.
This of course is my ‘wish list’. Let me know what you think we could add or change.
After watching the Charter Revision Commission this past year, I have lost all hope that they will put anything meaningful on the ballot. They seem to be interested in protecting government from its citizens, instead of the other way around. It’s sad really.
So I get an interesting call today from a guy in Florida who informed me that the new city contract for 5G cannot move forward (or at least it shouldn’t).
Besides his concerns about health to children, he brought up a bigger point. The FCC has been asked by two prominent congressional members to do a intensive study of the health affects of 5G. Why? Because nothing really currently exists. As I have pointed out in the past, I’m NOT sure if 5G is harmful, because the FCC hasn’t done research on long term affects;
Connecticut Senator Blumenthal and California Assemblywoman Eshoo have formally asked the FCC to provide scientific documentation about the safety of 5th Generation Internet connectivity, as the roll out of this new technology begins.  Their December 3, 2018 letter  refers to a Senate Commerce Committee field hearing, held in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, titled “Race to 5G, A View from the Fieldâ€Â on October 12, 2018.
It gets more interesting because this is a ‘Standing Request’ since the FCC is currently closed due to the shutdown;
Congress Members Ask for Proof of 5G Safety
Congress members Blumenthal and Eshoo then wrote a pointed letter to FCC Commissioner Carr asking for proof of safety, noting that “the current regulations were adopted in 1996 and have not been updated for next generation equipment and devices†and “The FCC’s Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limits do not apply to devices operating above 6 GHz.†5G frequencies will be from 6 GHz to 100 GHz and above. They highlight that the FCC has acknowledged that “The SAR probe calibration, measurement accuracy, tissue dialectric parameters and other SAR measurement procedures required for testing recent generation wireless devices need further examination.†A response was requested by Dec 17, 2018.
Besides the health concerns, what I find even more interesting is that there was NO testimony from the FCC before the contract was approved, well, because they are closed. The contract should have been deferred until the Feds reopen government and the FCC could have testified on the health concerns of 5G. There was NO testimony. Not from the FCC or Verizon.
A rate study is NOT allowed until after the first contract is expired, which is backwards. A rate study should have been done before we just implemented a $175 a year blind lease agreement. It would be similar to walking up to a rummage sale and asking the person running it, “What do you want for the microwave?” After a pause, he asks, “5 Bucks?”
The city council was told ‘they have NO choice’ but to approve the contract. Hogwash. There are many constitutional arguments that could be made that a city councilor DID NOT have to approve this contract AND the Federal Government CANNOT tell a municipality elected official HOW TO VOTE. The city attorney’s advice on this was ‘shady’ at best.
The federal government did not make the contract and cannot enforce it. It is illegal for a private corporation to use public utility poles without a period of public comment.
I was very disappointed in the SF City Council last night for NOT challenging the rate study, NOT challenging the health concerns (should have had testimony from FCC) and NOT challenging the ratification of this contract since the FCC is currently closed.
The good news is there has to be a 50 (20 from city, 30 from FCC) day waiting period. Hopefully within that time the government shutdown will end, and we will get an explanation from the FCC.
It was a sad day in city government watching our local officials roll over like dogs, for an agency that is on an extended vacation. Unbelievable.
Dr. Davis runs this website about the health affects of 5G, ehtrust.org
l3wis 
