Stop the Funding

Business Journal Editor opposes the proposed city administration building plan

l3wis September 18, 2016 4Comments

It’s no secret that Ms. Schwan was opposed the current ‘plan’. On her ‘100 Eyes on Business’ show with Lalley she spoke out that it wasn’t a plan that would spur economic development. At that time she stated if it was a private office space, maybe, like Docutap.

Then she did some digging around.

Last week Jodi emailed me with a simple question, “Who is moving into the new building at what are the floorplans?” I pretty much confessed that the employees moving into the building is a mystery, except for some rumblings about the engineering department.

Then she did some more digging;

And there, sitting right on top, was one of the reports I had felt was worth saving: an analysis that recommended how to address adding office space for city government.

“Office Space Utilization Analysis,” read the report, dated 2008 and completed by The Winkels Group. Inside was a detailed analysis of current and projected city office space needs as well as phased recommendations starting that year and continuing potentially through 2025.

Please continue;

In fairness, rough plans for the new administrative building show similar counters. But that doesn’t compensate for further separating city staff and surely causing confusion for the public. It is quite possible that someone needing to resolve an issue could have to visit both City Hall and the new administration building – and perhaps go back and forth multiple times between the two.

This is only a small part of what contractors, architects and developers were telling us while standing at the back door of the County Admin building. They also need to go to the county several time to get the planning work done. One contractor told us of six trips between the county and city to just build a small project, still not done because of the countering issues of dealing with both. The people we talked with wanted to have a way to simplify the process and the new city admin building actually makes their work harder.

I guess I just don’t see or feel the rush to start this building project, especially given that borrowing the money is the proposed funding solution – and we’ve borrowed more money than ever before over the past few years.

I feel more comfortable risking a slightly higher interest rate environment than I do obligating more sales tax right now to repay bonds at a time the city is already cutting back on other expenses. But that’s just me.

And that’s just it, economically, the plan just doesn’t add up. Most support having more administration space, but this plan falls flat on it’s face. Don’t take my word on it, just ask Jodi.

This is about citizen rights

l3wis September 17, 2016 1Comments

Former Rep. Manny Steele writes a letter about Tuesday’s vote;

The only fair way to know was to give the citizens an opportunity to vote.

The only council members true to the citizens at the Tuesday night council meeting were Theresa Stehly and Pat Starr. They honored their commitment to the people.

The other three: Greg Neitzert, Kristine Erickson and Marshall Selberg, who first voted for the people to have a vote, turned against the people and threw them under the bus.

The reasons given to flip flop were weak at best, and a real cop-out. They gave up and surrendered to the mayor when the citizens really needed them.

I am, as many others, extremely disappointed in them.

Yes, this was an ‘advisory vote’ but it would have shown some solidarity amongst the councilors who fought for this repeal to begin with.

Signatures be Damned, September 13, 2016

l3wis September 15, 2016 5Comments

6,400 voter signatures were turned over to an evasive, uncaring, untrustworthy city of Sioux Falls government and what happens? The majority of the City Council on September 13, 2016 essentially said go home and leave us alone.

The April Council had been played like a cheap fiddle by the administration and their leadership by postponing the bonding date to October 1. The 5 to 3 July successful repeal vote of the Council was dramatic, successful but short lived when the mayor vetoed the action the next week. The repeal leaders had given up.

One idea was floated by members of the 5 but who could do an impossible thing like a 5775 signature petition drive to force a vote? The petition drive was born at the only moment it could have. When there was an action to fight. Any sooner and it would have been in conflict with everything else already in action.

The effort to collect the signatures was fought from the moment of the Mayor’s veto on July 27 by the town’s administration. The lack of support from the city clerk shows how little he understands about the rights of citizens. Even with the issues petitioners received, 6,400 signatures were collected in less than 20 days with more than 95% verified. Bravo Sioux Falls voters for caring!

The citizens of Sioux Falls are continuing to learn how little those encased in the power process care about the future of the town or population. As long as they can borrow money without oversight, who cares? Every time the power group seduces another member to do their dirty work, it shows another reason why a corrupting system needs to be fixed.

We brought in new Council members this year who used this project and the fight against it, as center pieces of their reform of process campaigns. At the one yard line, all suited up, with several more plays available, our strongest players collapsed when hit with feathers. Looks like we brought pillows to a game instead of footballs. Asleep at the wheel of power with one yard to go? Nice play.

But how do you feel?

Why passing the Advisory Vote was important

l3wis September 14, 2016 3Comments

It’s nice knowing you have won when the game hasn’t even finished.

I get why the opponents voted against the advisory vote, or at least I understand ‘some’ of their arguments. Basically ‘if’ the bonds sell on October 3, the election would be moot.

But that is still an ‘IF’ and why they should have voted for it anyway. They made it sound like it was a ‘done deal’. It is not. Councilor Stehly said it best, ‘Defeatist Attitude’.

Here are some things to consider;

• This is election would cost the taxpayers nothing if it has to be repealed

• The mayor still has time to delay the bond sale

• A judge could issue a temporary restraining order on the bonds

The way the council spoke on Tuesday night, they acted like the bonds have already sold.

But the most damaging part to voting down this election is that there was NO solidarity shown amongst the 5 councilors that stuck together in the past. I believe and attorneys much smarter than I think that showing that solidarity on Tuesday night would have gone a long way in a courtroom on September 28.

But according to the other 3, we have already lost.

As I said Tuesday night during public input on this item, there are no winners are losers when it comes to this issue, this isn’t a ‘fight’ about the mayor vs. the council or the city clerk vs. Bruce Danielson. This is simply about allowing the citizens to vote on a project that will cost us well over $40 million at the end of the day.

As one of the commenters said last night “What are we scared of?”