“The whole idea is to find donors that might have an interest in supporting the parks system with projects we’ve identified as priorities,†said Don Kearney, the city’s parks and recreation director.
Like an ice ribbon? Notice how that rolled out, once a donor said they wanted to give, their name was put on it and the tax payers had to pony up (while still having to pay an admission). While I am all for private donations to our parks, that donation should never be dictated to what it should be used for since taxpayers will likely have to maintain the project after it is built and likely contribute a matching donation to build it.
This is also why I take issue with it being a ‘private’ foundation where decisions about our parks will be made in private by a bunch of rich people who want to plaster their names all over our parks with their pet projects. I have always been a big believer of giving anonymously, modestly and having that gift go to an organization as a whole. It almost seems some of the elites in town are upset they are NOT getting the projects they want to see, so they will circumvent the legislative process.
The irony of this is that we could fund all of these projects through tax dollars (and charge no admission) if we stopped spending CIP money on play palaces we don’t need. I think we have an amazing parks system and for the most part it is FREE and almost 100% funded through tax dollars. I mean how many more Sanford parks do we need?!
And BTW, what happened to all the Sioux Falls logos matching???? I’m going to have to turn you into the Graphic Design Police.
CONFIDENTIAL REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION 21-1 RECEIVED 10-14-2021 (EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL MATTERS PURSUANT TO SDCL 1-25-2(1) AND CONSULTING WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO SDCL 1-25-2(3))
This could be anyone with the city, employee or elected official. Since it is confidential we will never know. I think even if these meetings are in private, they should at least release the question and the decision without exposing who is asking. How do we know if the Ethics Commission made the right decision if we cannot watch the proceedings?
Will the Washington Pavilion be hired to run the Ice Ribbon?
With the new ice ribbon set to be built soon down by Falls Park, some are wondering if the Parks Department has what it takes to run the paid admission facility. Since they will have to have a ticketing booth and some kind of staff to assist people, they will likely have to hire a contractor to do it. While I am sure the Pavilion could handle it, what I don’t understand is why can’t the Parks Department? Oh that’s right, besides the department being ran by a two-faced liar, they can’t even hire part-time lifeguards, now try to find part-time ice guards. Maybe we should just let the Pavilion run our entire parks department, they are already draining our entertainment tax fund every year, might as well put them to work.
Available Liquor Licenses in Sioux Falls
After the 2020 Census, Sioux Falls has become eligible for more ON and OFF-SALE liquor licenses, I am awaiting the official numbers from the city but what I have heard unofficially is there is 27 additional Package (off-sale) licenses and 19 Retail (on-sale) licenses available. Not sure how many are already spoken for. Once I get more information I will let you know.
The Curbside Garbage ordinance is already on next week’s docket
The Sioux Falls City Council will likely consider an amendment to the city’s garbage ordinances that could allow garbage haulers to require curbside placement of garbage cans for pickup or charge extra to continue valet service.
It should be up to the consumer if they want to do it and there should be NO extra charge for the service. But it sounds like the hauler wants the city to force the consumer to do it, and if they don’t want to, they will be charged extra.
Whether the city council will support the move is another issue. In his Facebook post, Neitzert said he was “torn on this issue,” and asked for feedback from residents, and Councilor Rick Kiley said earlier this year he’d be against any such change if haulers weren’t planning on lowering rates for reduced service.
Councilor Janet Brekke has also regularly expressed her support for the current ordinance and how it keeps trash cans away from the street, improving the city’s aesthetics.
You never know, it might come to a tie vote with Poops siding with the haulers, we will see. You know my feelings on it, I think the city should contract with 4 major PRIVATE haulers and divide the city into 4 sections and pay our garbage bill with our water and sewer. We already own the landfill, why would we charge tipping fees? Yesterday while driving to work thru Cathedral neighborhood I saw two trucks parked next to each other from different haulers collecting cans at the same time on the same street. Dumb.
Oh, and let’s hear about 3 city councilors who profess about apartment dwellers being great for a neighborhood, but don’t live next to them. I do, and I love apartments, but I love my house more.
While I know the names of these two organizations, I will not mention the names at this point until I have more solid information.
While these two organizations have worked in a partnership for a very long time, I think most people wouldn’t know that. While they do have separate names, they are attached at the hip.
At a public meeting recently the head of one of the organizations said to expect a split between the two. It was also mentioned that the media ‘keep it under their hats’ until more details emerge. I wasn’t in attendance and not sure why this non secret remain a secret?
I have NO association with either organization, but both receive tax dollars because they help promote our community both in tourism and business (one more than the other).
It will be interesting if this happens and the reasons behind it. Like most things, it probably is related to money, unfortunately.
Move to South Dakota, work at a designated retail business, and receive $1,000 cash. That’s the premise of a new incentive from the South Dakota Retailers Association designed to address the workforce shortage in retail, restaurants, hospitality, grocery, trades and many other businesses. Individuals from out of state who come to work in South Dakota can qualify to receive a $1,000 cash payment that would supplement any hiring bonuses or other incentives offered by an individual business.
It’s been awhile since I have taken a swipe at the SDRA, but this one is almost too easy. Who would move to South Dakota at the beginning of winter to take a no benefits part-time job that pays half of minimum wage (if you are a server) for a $1,000 bonus you don’t get for another 6 months? WTF? When I first read this, I thought maybe it was some kind of joke.
I have argued for a long time that the hospitality industry in South Dakota and across the country should offer at least a buy in to health benefits even if you are part-time. They should also offer PTO and compensate ALL tipped employees the full minimum wage. Minnesota did this several years ago and it hasn’t hurt the industry one bit, some would argue it has improved it.
As I told an elected official yesterday, “The problem isn’t that we don’t have enough hospitality workers in Sioux Falls, the problem is we have to many mediocre restaurants.†You know as well as I do that 99% of eating establishments in Sioux Falls are below average, not just on food quality, but service and price point. Maybe the solution to our problem is to have restaurants that pay their workers well ALL YEAR LONG, offer benefits and in return we will get a better experience as a consumer. But like most things in good old Sodak, it is about the greed of the business owner while the employee and the consumer are left in the dust.
As you know, I oppose Ranked Choice Voting. I wouldn’t say I am strongly against it, I just don’t think it is a good way to pick HUMANS to serve us as elected officials. As I told someone recently, “It isn’t a chili cook-off.” I also have to disagree with this assumption below from the group pushing this silliness;
Here’s what can go wrong under the current election system for South Dakota municipalities. In the 2010 Sioux Falls mayoral election there were six candidates vying for this very important job. The first round votes were as follows:
Staggers (very conservative outsider) 24.9%
Huether (the only Democrat)Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 24.7%
Vernon Brown (moderate mainstream) 20.0%
Pat Costello (moderate mainstream) 16.3%
Bill Peterson (moderate mainstream) 13.6%
Other                        .5%
49.9% of voters voted for a moderate mainstream candidate. But in the runoff two weeks later voters had to choose between a Democrat and a very conservative outsider. Many were unhappy with that choice and wished any of the mainstream candidates had made the runoff.Â
Ranked choice voting would have allowed voters to rank their preferences. There would have been no runoff and one of the moderates would likely have prevailed. Most Sioux Falls voters would have been satisfied with that result.Â
These people won’t even let my good friend Staggers rest in peace. Kermit was certainly a fiscal conservative, but he was very socially conscience and NOT an outsider, and why he got the most votes in the 1st round of voting. Saying Bill Peterson or Costello were moderates made me laugh (they were very Republican) While I do agree Vernon was a moderate at the time, I would say he leans more right than left. Either way, I think if Rank Choice would have been used, Huether still would have won with Kermit or Vernon coming in 2nd. I have crunched the numbers a few times and Huether wins each and every time.
We don’t need ranked choice. It confuses voters. What we need is GOOD candidates to run so they can attain 51% of the vote the first time around. We don’t need to fix how we vote, we need to fix who we are allowing to run. I think we could level that playing field by making city election campaigns publicly funded.
l3wis