Thumbs up to Sioux Falls city councilors last night

by

While the mayor still got his budget, there was some shining moments last night during the budget hearing by the city’s legislative branch.

Councilor Erpenbach was able to restore $10,000 to clean the mosaic wall downtown. Money that ‘should’ have been in Central Services art cleaning budget. This just shows how petty the mayor is about his vengence towards certain people. They claim the wall will have to come down if that triangle piece of property is sold. Not true, as I understand it, it is a flood control wall mandated by the Feds.

Councilors voted down Van Eps Park improvements, $85,000 (a Staggers Amendment).

Councilors Erickson and Jamison voted down the City Administration Building (still stayed in budget). This albatross could have waited until we got the county on board.

Councilor Jamison and Anderson for having the idea to present Staggers amendments in leu of his illness.

And my biggest applause goes towards Councilor Erickson for being  the ONLY councilor to vote down the property tax increase.

I see Stu did a very long story about the budget hearing (like he knows anything about city government, once again putting down Staggers and applauding our dictator mayor).

Posted in: SF City Council, Sioux Falls

Planning Director Mike Cooper suggests deferral of FREE bus ridership for youth, council disagrees

by

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=298nld4Yfds

The Sioux Falls City Council voted 7-0 to approve the new pilot program tonight at the special meeting (Councilor Rolfing was absent).

But as of this morning, that vote looked a lot different. Jamison, Erickson & Staggers were on board, Karsky was a swing vote, and Erpenbach, Kiley and Anderson wanted to defer because they didn’t feel the city directors and mayor were included in the deal.

Call a whaaabulance, heard there was a new one in town. Some people are more concerned about getting credit, then getting things done for our community that are truly ‘progress’.

The city administrators and mayor didn’t need to be included. This was a simple resolution approved by the city’s legislative branch. The directors and department heads have 20 days until the resolution goes into effect to iron out the details – that is their ‘JOB’. And remember, this is a pilot test program for the summer, if it doesn’t work or needs to be tweaked, changes can be made at the end of the summer.

Besides Cathy B. suggesting the program, I found out over the weekend that Councilor Jamison with the help of Erickson spearheaded this resolution. Many non-profits and including the school district are all on board.

So let’s forget about the politics for a moment, and applaud the council for moving forward on this fabulous pilot program. Maybe things will look different in September, but I’m guessing not. There was another pilot program that was poo-poo’d just a few years ago.

Snow Gates.

Guess how that turned out?

Progress Sioux Falls. Progress.

Posted in: SF City Council, Sioux Falls

City Government Time Machine; Platting Fee Boondoggle, 9/15/08

by

Last night at the regular city council meeting a citizen brought up the failure of the platting fee idea to raise money for arterial roads, and he ultimately said ‘It should be repealed’.

I couldn’t agree more, it has been a complete failure, the plan that is.

In reality when the plan was proposed on September 15, 2008 (watch the meeting here).

It may have sounded good. It was simple, they would raise the 2nd penny tax to a full penny to help pay for arterial roads. The second part of the plan was what made it attractive. While raising the penny would help pay for 40% of the arterial roads, the developers would chip in 60% in platting fees.

That HAS not occurred. In fact they haven’t even come close to probably 4-5%. And while over the past 6 years the citizen taxpayers were putting in their share, the developers have contributed very little. Heck even a few years ago, a developer complained at a council meeting that the city wasn’t holding up their end of the deal by not building enough arterial roads like they promised. This developer was told, and rightly so, once the developers hold up their part of the deal the city would chip in.

When ever this is brought up (the terms we were sold) the developers have all kinds of excuses;

• The economy took a dump

(at the meeting that night, one proponent brought up the economy tanking, in fact that day, the dow dropped a record amount. The economy downturn was ALL over the news, but somehow SF developers thought they were immune. Ask them today about that immunity)

• They claimed they never said they would put in 60%

(over the past six years I have heard this LIE. Repeatedly during the above meeting the proponents said over and over again they would put in 60%. There was even a taxpayer funded website the city put up called movingsiouxfallsforward.org that claimed this amount.

• Public Works Director, Mark Cotter even repeated the plan

(He told Staggers in the meeting (1:06) that the plan was that the CIP would put in $35 million, the 2nd penny raise would put in $20 million and the developers would put in $30 million over the following 6 years. That has not even been a reality, not even close.

• As one opponent points out during testimony, there was nothing in the proposal to ‘legally bind’ the developers to put in what they promised. Nothing.

• And now that the economy has turned around and building is booming in Sioux Falls, will developers give us back pay on these platting fees to at least match what taxpayers had to put in (during an economic downturn) Of course not, just more excuses.

• The vote went down 4-4 with Munson breaking the tie and voting for the increase. Councilors Staggers, Costello, Beninga, Anderson voted against the increase and Councilors Brown, Knudson, Litz and Jamison voted for the increase.

• Even though this plan did fail, and the developers haven’t put their fair share in over the last 6 years, it hasn’t stunted growth at all. Why? Because once again, the taxpayers of SF have been bailing out the developers.

Some ‘Other’ highlights of the meeting;

• Mayor Munson gaveling me at the beginning of the meeting during public testimony when I made the accusation that the ethics commission were puppets for the administration. After he chews me out and tells me they are independent, I asked him, “But you appointed them? Correct?” He answered yes.

• Vernon Brown flipped his vote. When this first came up months earlier, Vern voted against it, this night he voted for it.

• Kermit points out that they weren’t following the proper state law to pass the platting fees (taxes) and should not even been voting on it.

• All the Proponents got to go first to testify, while the opponents had to wait almost 2 1/2 hours, instead of alternating speakers.

• Another funny moment was when Bill Peterson told Staggers that people weren’t flocking to move to Minot, ND to live anytime soon.

OTHER LINKS:

My KELO interview a year after the tax increase

DaCola Links

Posted in: Developers, Development, Platting Fees, SF City Council, Sioux Falls, Taxes

The ‘much awaited’ Detroit Lewis SF Municipal Election endorsements

by

I decided that this year I will only do endorsements and not predictions. Many of the races and ballot issues are neck and neck and heated, and I have NO clue how this election will end up (well maybe, just a little).

SCHOOL BOARD

Roger Russell. As Roger says himself;

Challenger Roger Russell, a Sioux Falls realtor, says board members should be responsive to parent’s concerns.  As a realtor Russell says he understands the importance of keeping property taxes low.

His competitor has been nothing but a suck-up for the Homan administration, and only after threatening phone calls did he and his fellow board members decide to change their vote on the pledge. So much for listening to the parents and constituents. It is the job of the school board to keep Homan in check, be a watch dog of property taxes, and an advocate for parents. Morrison has failed this on many levels. He told one substitute teacher on the phone that he could only correspond with her through the district attorney and hung up her. We have enough elitists in local government. Time to give Morrison his walking papers.

MAYOR

Greg Jamison. I know I have been accused of being an endorser of Jamison and his campaign, so I will clear that up right now. I am not.

I just really don’t care much for his opponent.

There are things that trouble me about Jamison, you probably feel the same, and this is my word of advice, you don’t have to vote for him. If you are disenfranchised by both candidates, leave it blank. But please, don’t vote for Mike.

AT-LARGE ‘A’

Emmett Reistroffer. I have known Emmett and his extended family for a long time. I first met him when he volunteered to help Stehly and I with our tax petition drive.

He is smart, full of energy and well versed on the issues and has compassion for people. A rarity in politicians.

He would bring a breath of fresh air and youthfulness to a sometimes stodgy council.

As for his opponents, while I will give Steele credit for knowing his issues, and being a fiscal conservative, his social views make me cringe. As for Tex Golfing, not only does he still not know what the heck is doing after four years, his intent for reelection is worrisome. It is no secret that Rex is retired and owns a retirement home, far, far away, it seems the only reason he is running is to block Emmett or Manny. If Rolfing is reelected he could easily resign in a year – by law, for NO reason. He has denied to many that he will do that, but as I have told people in the past, ‘Never trust an insurance salesman’.

AT-LARGE ‘B’

We all will come out a winner on this seat. I am impressed with both candidates on some issues, and not on others.

I believe they both possess the qualities to make decent councilors (Erickson/Pierson).

I will personally be voting for Pierson, but like I said, no losers here.

CENTRAL DISTRICT

Rebecca Dunn is the obvious choice and not just because Erpenbach needs to go. Michelle has proven to be a lap dog for special interests and developers, just look at her campaign donor list. She has consistently bullied other councilors, help spear head the termination of former city clerk Debra Owen and has repeatedly stepped on the toes of other councilors to get agenda items on the council agenda without the consensus of her peers. She is also pro-censorship, something I DO NOT tolerate in elected officials.

But besides Michelle’s flaws, she would be replaced by a person who has legislative & leadership skills (it is Dunn’s line of work, and she served 8 years in the SD Legislature).

She has proven time and time again that she is very involved in this community, state and nation.

She lives in the Cathedral district home she grew up in and has fought to keep the established neighborhoods in this community viable.

S.E. DISTRICT

Bonita Schwan is wonderful 🙂 While I can’t say a lot of negative things about Mr. Kiley (I have fielded many calls and emails that he is a standup guy) I was disappointed that in the last candidate forum he didn’t take a stand on any issue, and didn’t seem to be to versed on the issues (maybe that is why he did not take a stand). He seems to be a Johnny come lately recruit.

Quite the opposite with Schwan. Besides being involved with the Save Our Neighborhood group, Bonita is a single mother of four who has dedicated much of her time to local charities. She is a former Peace Corp volunteer and has years of experience in state government working for Governor Brandstad of Iowa.

She is also an expert on municipal bonding.

I would also like to say that Bonita has a heart of gold, and if you would want anyone on the council in your corner as a constituent, it would be Bonita.

CHARTER AMENDMENTS

I would vote YES on all the amendments. A & B are basic housekeeping due to the change of council meetings on Tuesday now instead of Monday nights. They are changing the charter to stating a specific week (the 3rd) instead of a day in reference to the swearing in of the new council and mayoral candidates. Nothing life-changing here. As for amendment C, this gives the council the power to help appoint or terminate the city attorney. While I would prefer the constituents vote for the city attorney, this is at least a step forward for checks and balances.

I believe our current city attorney and the past two were only lap dogs for the mayor (because they were appointed by them).

This would clarify just who the city attorney works for; our mayor, our council and ultimately us.

INITIATED MEASURE 1

Vote YES for Snowgates. They have been proven throughout the country to be effective and some communities have been using them for almost 40 years. This is NOT a new public service, it is simply an extension of one we are already receive (except this winter) – plowing our streets properly.

The city has an obligation to plow the streets correctly, and this is one way to oblige their obligation.

We already pay for the service so why not make it better? This is also something that not only helps homeowners, it helps  business owners, pedestrians and many others throughout the community.

INITIATED MEASURE 2

Vote YES for an outdoor pool at Spellerberg. Where to begin?

1) If the outdoor pool is approved, it does not mean we have to build another aquatic park like at Drake Springs. There are many options. We could build a traditional lap pool, we could also build a natural filtration pool like they are in Minneapolis, with a beach and NO admission charges. The options are endless.

2) If the measure fails, there is NO guarantee they would build an indoor pool at the location. They could just fill the old pool in and leave it as green space. The NEW council will have to approve funding/bonds for a new indoor pool at the location.

3) It affects the parking at the VA if an indoor pool is built.

4) There is a ‘quit claim’ deed on the property from the Feds, they could refuse to give approval of an indoor facility.

5) It is the wrong location for a gigantic indoor facility, with no room for expansion.

6) There needs to be a private/public partnership for an indoor facility due to how much it will cost to operate each year (around $1 million).

REFERRED LAW 3

Vote NO. While Shape Places is a great document, it needs some tweaks. These tweaks will NOT take place if it is passed ‘AS IS’. The city directors and council will simply accept the ordinance for what it is.

If you vote against it, it will force the council and city directors to tweak the ordinance before the council votes it into law.

The ‘tweak’ that needs to take place is putting CUP (the conditional use permit) back into the ordinance, which allows citizens and neighborhoods to have input on zoning changes. This is why SON referred the measure. It is essential that this is put back into the ordinance before it passes, and why revoking it would force the council and city to do so. This isn’t just about Walmart and other big developments and retailers, this is about your neighborhood.

REFERRED LAW 4

Vote No. Before I get into a rant about Walmart, this is really about zoning, and how much input ‘established’ neighborhoods have in zoning. The SON neighborhood consists of homes that were mostly built before 2009 when the city changed the zoning designation of the proposed Walmart. These people did their research, and built their homes, now the city wants to pull the rug out from underneath them. I encourage anyone to drive through this area, these are beautiful homes and clearly not a place where you would want ANY big box retailer.

It would be the equivalent of dropping a Walmart on top of McKennan Park. Wonder how that would go over? Like a freaking lead balloon.

This issue should concern all homeowners in this city, not just those on the edge. It is about having tenure in your neck of the woods.

I would also like to say, that SON is not opposed to retail at the 85th and Minnesota location, in fact they invite it. Walmarts have a tendency (especially super stores) to bring an element of high density traffic and host of other problems.

Walmart’s argument of more tax collection and job creation is a weak one. Even if Walmart is denied this location, they could build across Highway 100 and create the same tax benefits and job creation. Walmart also has a reputation of cannibalizing other businesses and not really creating any NEW tax revenue.

It is a disgrace to our community that our local Chamber would encourage a YES vote on this project, knowing damn well the damage Walmarts do to local business, their very members.

Walmart also has a reputation of being a horrible employer that encourages it’s employees to suck off of Federal programs like Medicade and SNAP. A recent study showed that on an average, each Walmart costs Federal taxpayers about $1.7 million PER STORE, PER YEAR to subsidize their employees, and that’s just Federal money. Locally and on a state level, taxpayers will have to subsidize the traffic and other infrastructure costs associated with the construction.

SON will say this is ONLY about zoning, but I personally think this is about Walmart, the biggest welfare queen of them all.

IN CLOSING

Of course, you don’t have to take my advice. But I do advise everyone to research all the candidates and measures on their own and make an informed decision.

The best place to vote is at the County Administration building at 6th and Minnesota.

Absentee voting begins this Monday, March 24th. If you wait until April 8th, remember you can vote at ANY of these Vote Centers;

1. First Lutheran Church, 327 South Dakota Avenue

2. Memorial Middle School, 1401 South Sertoma Avenue

3. Maricar Community Center, 400 North Valley View Road

4. Oyate Community Center, 2421 West 15th Street

5. Wesley United Methodist Church, 1700 East Sixth Street

6. Sioux Falls Arena, 1201 North West Avenue

7. Peace Lutheran Church, 5509 West 41st Street

8. Kenny Anderson Community Center, 3701 East Third Street

9. Morningside Community Center, 2400 South Bahnson Avenue

10. Gloria Dei Lutheran Church, 5500 East 57th Street

11. Faith Baptist Fellowship Hall, 601 West 57th Street

12. Asbury United Methodist Church, 2425 South Western Avenue

13. Instructional Planning Center, 201 East 38th Street

Posted in: Elections, Sioux Falls

So the city has ‘No legal obligation’ to stay within the $115 million dollar price tag on the Events Center?

by

Remember this ad? Click to enlarge

If you watch the SF City Council Informational meeting from last Tuesday (FF: 31:00) City Attorney, David Fiddle-Faddle admits to councilor Jamison that the city doesn’t have to ‘legally’ follow the pricetag.

Greg, “What kind of legal commitment does the city have to stay within that $115 Million Dollar pricetag (sic)?”

David, “We don’t have one, the election was simply an ADVISORY election to try to stay within that dollar amount. By state law, since it was an advisory election, the city has no legal obligation to stay within that dollar amount (sic).”

Of course, Entenman and Cotter defend the election and reassure Greg that they will stay within that price limit. Diamond Jim goes on to say that he is pretty sure Greg will let them know if it goes over that amount.

This is very important to watch. The city has already spent CIP money for water and utility hookup to the EC. They are also using CIP and State money to improve the roads in the area. They have also switched sewer and water upgrades over to enterprise funds instead of the CIP. The mayor and his administration have carefully been moving around money through the use of small, time graduated, resolutions. You also have to take into account, additional parking, or a parking ramp will have to be built at the EC site in the near future.

I am glad Jamison asked the question, and now we have the city attorney on record.

Posted in: Event Center, SF City Council, Sioux Falls