The below document is actually a ‘notice’ to the city that one will be filed next week with the State’s Attorney office. I believe that it refers to presentations during the consent agenda in which the Chair (Mayor TenHaken) did not ask for public input. It was also the responsibility of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the Chair of the Council, this is why they are mentioned in the complaint.
I also want to clarify, I wasn’t the one who caught this, I missed the part in the meeting when this occurred as I was on a phone call (I watch the meetings live from home). Sierra is the one who actually caught it and took action on her own.
The irony of all this is that I just told the Charter Revision Commission last week that public input at city meetings was broken and needed to be fixed.
The city council bowed down to the garbage haulers last night essentially allowing them to charge a valet fee to pick up garbage by your house if you can’t carry it to the end of the driveway (Councilor Neitzert and Starr voted against the measure). So not only will cans be blowing all over the streets moving forward, they will probably remain there all week since the city really has no enforcement.
One company already told a person today that the valet service would be $17 extra a month even if you have a disability. Some have already been discussing if this is an ADA violation discriminating against handicapped and elderly folks. We will see the complaints coming.
Also, as Councilor Starr pointed out last night, Kiley’s Amendment didn’t get a required 24 hour notice to the council a rule that Kiley and Erickson have squawked about in the past when other councilors have not followed the rule. In fact the city attorney is the one who thinks this rule should be followed even though he remained silent about it last night.
I understand the haulers complaints about gas and labor issues, but the haulers already have the power to raise rates, they just wanted the council to validate it for them.
I have argued that common sense could easily fix many of these issues and actually lower our rates without getting rid of the private service or valet. Two things I have suggested are setting up sectors and days when garbage can be picked up during the week in a specific neighborhood and stop charging the haulers tipping fees unless they go over a certain tonnage or are dropping trash from other communities. The first idea has actually been thrown around for awhile and would save the haulers on fuel and labor. The second idea has probably not been discussed but makes sense. The taxpayers already own the landfill and pay for it’s maintenance. We also make money from the methane and other materials we sell. It doesn’t make sense for the city to charge a private hauler tipping fees then have them turn around and charge the consumer for dropping garbage off at a facility we own. It’s like putting a parking meter in your driveway.
The council should have voted for Neitzert’s original amendment to leave it alone and discussed putting together a task force to explore other options to save money. Neitzert said it best last night, what we currently have now is a ‘community standard’ we should be proud of. Once again, the rubber stampers took the easy cruise control government route that will make service more expensive and messier without solving the root causes. I’m surprised Carnegie didn’t explode last night with all the DUMB on the DIAS.
There is also a rumor circulating that an open meetings violation will be filed since public input was NOT allowed during the meeting on two items (Club David’s liquor license, and Covid study). Both were pulled from the consent agenda and the Chair of the meeting, Mayor TenHaken, did not request public input, and neither did the clerk or other councilors.
I don’t know the answer to that question because obviously there has been NO mandate at this point, and I don’t expect the city’s top employee manager, Mayor TenHaken, a (closet) right-winger, to mandate one. I believe he could do so by executive order, but lacks the spine to do it.
Several of my city moles have told me that Dr. Chima, the Health Director, did ask that the city has a vaccination mandate. If that is true, he was obviously denied, which is no surprise.
I have also heard from people visiting Falls Community Health that many people working at the clinic don’t wear masks even though the CDC requires a clinic receiving Federal money should require the employees to wear masks. Supposedly one person working at the clinic was asked wear their mask was and they said, “The mayor said I don’t have to wear one.”
I wonder how the CDC and Medicare would feel about that and future Federal funding of the clinic?
I find this concerning, because this place does receive Federal and Local tax dollars, and common sense would tell you that when working in a medical clinic you should be wearing a mask. The private clinics require it and follow CDC guidelines. Heck, Burger King employees even still wear masks.
I fully support vaccination mandates for taxpayer funded employees. As major employers like Sanford and Tyson Foods have proven, compliance is over 95%. Mandates work and the handful of employees you would lose wouldn’t be missed. Maybe the city has $49 million laying around for severance 🙁
As l learned on Wednesday there is probably going to be proposed legislation next year that could change TIFs to apply to residential housing. But does the city have to wait for Pierre to make a move?
I don’t think so.
There are already things the city has been doing or are planning on doing;
• A home buying program for police officers and firefighters
• The city can give property tax rebates to homeowners, I think the last mayor to do this city wide was Hanson
• The mayor gives yearly tax rebates to dozens of developers and big employers
• Community development loans either low interest or no interest and federal grants associated with the program
• Councilors Pat Starr and Curt Soehl are exploring elderly property tax rebates
The city council only likely has the power to rebate the city’s portion of the property tax, but over a period of 5-10 years, that is significant savings.
I don’t think the city has to wait for state law to change, I think they have the power right now to start a city property tax rebate program for people who want to buy a home in our core that needs rehabilitation, in fact they could have started this program 20 years ago if they wanted to.
I have been a proponent for over a decade that the city engages in a pilot program in our core that rehabs entire neighborhoods with a combination of public works (streets, sewer, water, lighting, sidewalks, curb and gutter) and individual property owners with fixing up their property with the use of Federal grants, community development loans and city property tax rebates.
So why doesn’t the city pursue this? I don’t have that answer, but if I had to guess it has to do with developer greed and the elite structure of leadership in our city.
So when someone tells you it is hard to rehab poorer neighborhoods in our city because of ‘laws’ I just don’t believe them. The city council in conjunction with the mayor’s office and planning department have all the tools they need to start on a pilot program like this, but their hatred of the working poor is getting in the way of their handouts to the welfare developers.
Presentations on October financials and City Council legislative priorities for the 2022 legislative session (notice the City Council continues to support TIFs without any evidence of their economic benefit since NO independent study has been done).
Item #7, Approval of Contracts, Sub-Item #12, Centralized Facilities, Public Works Street Division Administration Building Remodel; Agreement for professional services, Stone Group Architects, Inc., $143K (So now we are already remodeling a brand new building? How about we get payment on the de-funk HVAC system first? Or are we still not supposed to be talking about that?)
Item #28, 2nd Reading, Ordinance, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF ITS WASTEWATER SYSTEMÂ REVENUE BOND, $123 Million.
Item #30, 2nd Reading, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SD, AMENDING CHAPTER 57: GARBAGE AND RECYCLYING OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY PERTAINING TO THE COLLECTION REGULATIONS. (This is going to be a S-Show. I would suggest leaving it as is, and if people want to kindly take their cans down to the end of the driveway, let them. No matter how this goes, the garbage companies have already vowed to raise rates due to inflation, gas prices, labor costs etc. The irony is we can save on all that stuff if we just mandated hauler zones so we don’t have 27 different hauler company trucks driving down the same street on a Wednesday to pick up one can from one house.)
Item #32, 1st Reading, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SD, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY BY AMENDING CHAPTER 111: ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. (Due to the Census, this stuff gets changed, or something like that. Anyway, I found it interesting that they increase the initial license fee for full service restaurant $157 and the initial license fee for On-sale dealers $48,286. Huh? I guess you can’t get as drunk at a restaurant? And we wonder why no one wants to get a MJ Med dispensary license in Sioux Falls?)
Item #39, 1st Reading, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SD, APPROVING OFFER TO PURCHASE REAL ESTATE FROM THE CITY. (Another fire sale to the city’s favorite welfare developer, and this time cleverly done behind closed doors . . . wait. Who appraised this property? Kassidy Peters? Nope, it is THIS COMPANY, interesting that the city used the same appraiser that has the developer buying this as a regular client;
Private Individuals who own apartment complexes, businesses and other independently managed organizations such as The Lloyd Companies, Costello Company, Hefty Seed Company, Sioux Steel Company
l3wis 
