Canton proposes building swimming pool with garbage fees

by

You got to hand it to them for being creative;

  • Right now, Canton has private garbage services, meaning residents choose whichever provider they’d like to come collect their trash.
  • In a city-run garbage collection system, Canton would put out a bid to trash collectors and choose the lowest offer.
  • Because the city would take care of billing logistics, Gannon anticipates collectors would offer much lower rates to the city than they’re able to offer directly to customers.
  • Customers’ bills won’t go up, but because costs are lower, the city would have extra income from garbage collection to then help pay for the pool.

While I will leave it up to the citizens of Canton to determine if they want to pay for their pool with garbage fees, I do support the idea of municipal garbage. I have argued for a long time that if the City of Sioux Falls did this you would save consumers because the billing could be processed thru your water bill and the private contractor(s) the city would hire wouldn’t pay tipping fees and would have shorter planned routes.

I also would implement a city ambulance service since right now the city is already assisting in mutual aid, sometimes showing up before the private ambulance, and we are getting NO reimbursement from the private ambulance provider for our aid.

Some argue against having these services provided by the city, but if done correctly they can be very beneficial and cost effective for citizens.

Posted in: Canton, Public Works, Sioux Falls, Sioux Falls Parks and Rec

Zeal lease contract with the City of Sioux Falls is based on empty promises

by

Before we dive into the current proposed agreement (Item #18) watch these videos from 2018 (FF to 9:30 in the first Q & A and listen to the Mayor’s answer about personal guarantee);

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9clehpI2XE&t=496s

So why do I bring this up? The deal that took place back than echoes what is going on with ZEAL.

Let me make this clear, I SUPPORT, Zeal & StartUp Sioux Falls moving to this building, I support their vision for the facility, I even kind of support the $1 a year lease. But let’s face it, most people in this city are worried about where their next paycheck and meal is coming from and not starting a business so there is absolutely NO reason the taxpayers need to partner with them. In fact DTSF has several private properties available for a facility like this without the city needing to get involved.

The main issue with the deal is the handshake promise that they will spend $1 million remodeling the building. It is true that in the contract they will be responsible for general maintenance and have to carry insurance, but like the Bunker Ramp deal there is NOTHING in writing that they must spend this money, even though the city promises to reimburse them if they break the lease. The mayor also has authority of what improvements can be made, which is good. But like the deal with Jeff Lamont that was based on a flimsy piece of paper that he was ‘good for the money’ ZEAL has NOTHING in writing they will spend the $1 million.

Did we learn nothing from the $26 million dollar pile of cement?

What baffles me is that while this mayor and the past one claim they are running the city like a business, NO ONE in the private sector would sign a contract like this if the promises were not in writing and approved by their legal counsel.

This is just another handshake deal between the mayor and his rich buddies with NO (legal) accountability, and while it frustrates me these backroom deals persist, I think for the most part the massive conflicts of interest sadden me when we could have just done better. I know the mayor shares a deep friendship with some of the individuals involved, but this isn’t the mayor personally borrowing his lawn mower to a buddy, this is a tax payer owned asset and we must dot the I’s and cross the T’s to protect OUR asset NOT the mayor’s friend’s asses.

Some may argue that this is NOT like the Bunker Ramp deal, which when it comes to value, they are correct. But when it comes to a private/public partnership almost everything is identical, including nothing in writing. We just don’t seem to learn from (recent) history when it comes to contracts with these partnerships like the cost overruns and shoddy work with the Pavilion, Admin Building, Events Center, Midco Aquatic Center and Bunker Ramp. I have even heard there are now millions in cost overruns with the Water Treatment and Public Safety facilities that are not even completed yet.

I don’t expect my council and mayor to be geniuses when it comes to these negotiations, but at least look at history and rely on your 6-Figure a year staff to give top notch advice and draw up contracts that value accountability.

Posted in: Bunker Ramp, Downtown Sioux Falls, Mayor TenHaken, SF City Council, Sioux Falls, ZEAL

Sioux Falls City Council Agenda, Nov 16, 2021

by

Informational Meeting • 4 PM

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).

Regular Meeting • 6 PM

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 SYSTEM 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

That shouldn’t throw up any red flags . . .

Posted in: SF City Council, Sioux Falls

City of Sioux Falls Thursday’s Tidbits

by

Sioux Falls Ethics Commission met today, but we don’t know why

It says in the agenda;

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

I can almost guarantee the Rubberstamp Council will pass the curbside garbage ordinance and allow haulers to charge extra for valet service:

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.

Posted in: Ethics, Liquor Licenses, Sioux Falls, Sioux Falls Parks and Rec, Washington Pavilion

UPDATE: Results of Sioux Falls Garbage Survey are strange

by

UPDATE: As I suspected today during the informational, the Public Works department dropped their bomb. The garbage haulers want curbside service, don’t want to give a discount for it, and get this, want to charge extra for VALET service (what we currently receive by ordinance). The city council did push back and said a larger discussion must be had first. As I predicted, big business in Sioux Falls wants to get their way, and there is NO way it will trickle down to the citizen consumers. We will see what the rubberstamp council decides, but I’m guessing we (working stiff citizens) will lose in the end, with less service and higher rates. Isn’t deregulation wonderful?

Oh, and if you want a real get in the sack, watch public input during the regular council meeting tonight. Sierra drops the bomb on the Dudley House situation and one lady testifies the Covid vaccination is a bitcoin injection that will be turned on with a micro-chip activated by 5G phones to steal our bank accounts and kill us. LMFAO!

While around 58% of respondents were ok with putting garbage cans at curbside that was about the only clear answer we received.

RESULTS

Some don’t want government to tell garbage haulers what to do, which means the (private haulers) will be telling the consumers what to do and the very reason we have regulation that apparently people don’t want.

And while most consumers agree customer service and price is what they look for most, only around half think they should get a better deal because of curbside. Around another half think it is okay to take the cans to curbside, they just want the hauler to return them to beside their house. So about HALF want HALF-WAY curbside.

The comments are also interesting to read, over 70 pages of them.

I have argued for a long time leave it up to the CONSUMER to decide if they want to take it to curbside, and if so sign a contract with the hauler that says if you do this 100% of the time you will receive a discounted rate in your next bill.

Also, in the comment section, many people feel the city should be broken up in districts so garbage collection only occurs once a week on your block instead of multiple haulers picking up multiple days at multiple times.

I have said for a long time a money and time saving solution to all this madness is for the city to contract with the top haulers (like they do with snow removal) and make it a public system using private haulers. We could supply them their fuel and charge NO tipping fees. We would pay the companies directly for volume and the city would bill you for the garbage fee in your water/sewer bill. You could have the option of having curbside or by your house pickup and one hauler would come to your block once a week.

Many have argued competition keeps prices lower. There really isn’t competition in Sioux Falls. In fact, with all of the companies Waste Management has bought up there really is only one major hauler, them.

One of the main reasons I have argued against curbside is because the haulers are not willing to give a discount for helping them out with fuel and labor costs.

If the council makes changes to curbside, the haulers MUST be willing to discount for that kind of service, but like TIFs they will argue the trickle down economic benefits to the rest of us without actual deliverance of those benefits. Think about it, the results came out on August 20th and the public works department has been fiddling with how they are going to spin this to the public and the council for almost 2 months! In the end we will get screwed.

I truly think the haulers want to save money on labor and fuel, but they also want to put that savings right into their pockets, and frankly, that’s a bunch of garbage.

Posted in: Public Utilities, Public Works, SF City Council, Sioux Falls