SF City Council
l3wis Sioux Falls City Council Informational (1/2/2019)
During public input (at the end) I remind the city council how stupid it was to create an internal audit committee and department after ONE person violated city charter (Mayor Munson, Phillips to the Falls cost overrun) and NO one pressed charges against him. I don’t know, wouldn’t it be setting an example by charging him with violating city charter and forcing him to resign instead of creating a department that never fixed the problem at hand? Corruption in the Mayor’s office.
I also touched on having a city ordinance that requires Directors and Managers of the city to live within the city, due to emergency situations. I expressed my dismay that SF was good enough to work for, and collect a paycheck from, but not good enough to live in.
And lastly I discussed how the 5G lease agreements could help pay for Metro 911. I think that went straight over their heads.
Do we really need a City Attorney’s office?
I have questioned for a long time why we have so many attorneys working for the city if we are consistently hiring outside counsel.
Last night at the city council meeting, Bond Counsel representative Doug Hajek explained to the city council that the city had to hire an outside firm because they specialize in bonding. While I understand this, what I don’t understand is why do we even have city attorneys?
Maybe we should just have a couple of paralegals and a purchasing agent (who will hire the outside counsel).
I do however think, the city council needs their own attorney to advise them on legislation. I have suggested in past, as we had with City Clerk, Debra Owen, we have a city clerk with a law license so we could kill two birds with one stone?
Another reason I take issue with outside counsel, is because the city has a habit of putting most major law firms in town on retainer, which makes it extremely difficult for an average citizen to hire an attorney when they have problems concerning the city. A lot of the attorneys that are willing to take your case are retiring, and it will be virtually impossible for you to find a local attorney.
I think the city attorney’s office should have attorneys that are qualified to handle bonds, complicated development contracts, RFPs etc. Like I said above, if our attorney’s office can’t handle, which seems to me, as normal ‘city legal stuff’, maybe we should just eliminate the positions. Anybody can hire an attorney, that doesn’t take a law degree.
Sioux Falls City Council Agenda, Jan 2-3, 2019
City Council Informational, 4 PM • Wed/2
Updates on Audit Reports.
There is also a draft of changes to the functions in ordinance to the Audit Committee. I encourage you to read the red notes. There are some significant changes that I’m not sure are GOOD or BAD.
City Council Regular Meeting, 7 PM • Wed/2
Item #7, Approval of Contracts
While it is common practice to hire outside counsel for bonds, I find it a little strange that the city attorney’s office could NOT handle this. Why? The city is taking a loan from the state. Unlike other bonds, this doesn’t involve private investors on the open market. To put it in perspective, it’s like borrowing a five spot from your uncle. A government agency in the state borrowing money from the state. Why would we even want PRIVATE outside counsel involved? Weird.
Item #43, 1st Reading, License agreement for 5G network. Come and talk NOW because we will only get two SMALL opportunities to do so while the Feds and Big Communications run rough shot over us and the city rolls over like a dog for John Thune in all his majesty.
I feel like I’m downloading that cat video so much faster already.
One of the locations of the new cell technology will be by the Events Center. How much ‘business’ is being conducted while people are watching a concert? Funny how we always hear the argument for ‘Economic Development’ yet we both know this is about loading up selfies faster to Instagram. And we know what our mayor thinks about selfies.
Planning Commission Meeting, 6 PM • Thur/3
Consent Agenda, Item ‘C’ has the wrong designation on documents, which is further confusing because item ‘D’ for Sanford is missing documents on a site plan. I see the NEW version of SIRE is not working very well.
Regular Agenda Item ‘B’. Moving forward with the St. Francis House expansion in an established neighborhood.
—————————————————————
