UPDATE: City Hall still in denial about what the 2nd Penny is for

The 2nd penny was designed to help pay for roads and infrastructure, like sewer plants, but city hall seems to be clueless about it;

Stehly’s repeal efforts, though, face long odds of gaining success. T.J. Nelson, deputy chief of staff for Mayor Paul TenHaken, said the administration opposes the resolution because it is a less equitable way to provide sewer service to Sioux Falls residents.

That’s because right now, sewer and water customers — including businesses like big box stores and industrial type companies — pay for what they use. Nelson said if the city shifted from consumption-based pricing, the average citizen who pays sales tax could end up subsidizing water and sewer services for the heaviest water and sewer users in the city.

“Councilor Stehly’s proposal goes completely against the heart of the issue,” he said. “Her resolution would to have the opposite effect of what she thinks it will.”

Yet every time I go buy groceries or anything in this town I am subsidizing people who are attending shows at the Denty. Doesn’t that go against the ‘Heart of the Issue?’ Why should I have to pay extra for milk and eggs so people can be entertained? If we truly want to use user fees, then we need to have the users of the Denty pay for the Denty.

Stehly’s proposal is simple, use user fees to pay for operating and maintenance of the sewer system, use the 2nd penny to upgrade the infrastructure of the sewer system. It’s not rocket science, in fact it is the fiscally responsible thing to do and worked for decades in Sioux Falls until the former mayor had to get his mitts on extra money for his play things.

Also, the bigger question is why didn’t hear about this expansion until after the election, they have known about this for a very long time (Public Works).

UPDATE: I wrote about this TWO years ago, changing all the entertainment facilities in Sioux Falls over to Enterprise Funds.

Is Jodi Schwan working for the City again?

So I’m reading the latest update about the private/public partnership, Village on the River;

Journey’s work has been a “key, pivotal piece” of making the project happen, said Erica Beck, chief of staff for Mayor Paul TenHaken.

“They have excellent professionalism. They’ve done a great job of creating a safe site within an urban area, which is incredibly important,” she said. “We’ve received a lot of positive comments about that – it’s a safe site and a screened site, and it’s been well-received by the public.”

So why was I not reading this on the city’s website or watching it at an informational meeting presentation? Instead I got this information on Jodi’s website in which the contractor had to pay to present it.

Am I the only one that thinks it is a little odd that after the city gave over $20 million towards this project we are not being given timely updates at public meetings? Oh, that’s right, somebody may ask the ‘Legacy’ question again, and we just can’t have that in a public setting, someone may have to either answer the question or lie. Better just to pay Jodi to get it out there.

City of Sioux Falls & Minnehaha County share the cost of Homeless study

So at the non-televised joint city council and commission meeting today, the entities decided to split the cost of this study; Homeless-Study

While I think the study is needed, I’m wondering why Augustana (a private university) had to get reimbursed for a ‘research’ project? I guess Augie has trouble scrounging together $27K. Well that’s what you get when you have a Democrat running the joint, poor fundraising skills . . . ouch.

What is also ironic, the local government entity that serves the most homeless, poor and underpriviledged in our community didn’t contribute a penny to the study (SF School District). I guess they have already identified their homeless issues.

UPDATE: Another Comedy routine, this time at City Hall

And the laughs keep coming. I’m afraid to ask what happened at the Minnehaha County Commission meeting this morning.

City Hall reassures us there are NO dangers in 5G, then this;

But, according to federal rules, health concerns about radiation and radio frequency emissions aren’t a valid reason for local governments to stand in the way of the expansion of 5G technology.

The Federal Communications Commission, though, says early indications are the technology poses no risk to the public, though there are no definitive studies due to 5G being in its infancy.

It’s kind of like we don’t know if the mushrooms are poisonous until the royal food tester eats one. Is this City Hall or an episode of Monty Python?

Oh, but the lack of transparency excuses are even funnier than the health affects;

And while claims that 5G technology is unsafe don’t ring true for TenHaken, his deputy chief of staff T.J. Nelson said even if they did the city couldn’t prohibit 5G expansion if it wanted.

“Part of 1996 Telecommunications Act … preempts local government from regulating wireless communications on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency emissions,” he said.

So if that is true old wise one TJ, what does this mean;

That’s why City Hall is moving ahead with an ordinance proposal to establish licensing and fee requirements for companies like Verizon Wireless that want to install 5G towers in public right of ways that are in line with FCC guidelines.

How can City Hall move forward with ordinances if #1) they have to follow the FCC’s rules and #2) Had no public input and #3) No input from the city council and #4) No public meetings?

Oh, and BTW, only 3 city councilors reached out to me about my email. Two by phone and one by email. All three of them told me they feel like they are bound by the Feds rules, and I get that. So if that is true, how can you have local regulations on the books if the FCC overrides them?

No sure if this is some kind of a sick joke, but it’s not funny, even if the messenger has a bad combover.

UPDATE: Here are some things we can expect, 

http://www.govtech.com/network/Sacramento-Calif-Partners-with-Verizon-on-Free-Park-Wi-Fi.html

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/city-beat/article154728374.html

http://www.govtech.com/network/Sacramento-Verizon-Push-Pause-on-Kiosk-Deal.html?utm_term=READ%20MORE&utm_campaign=Sacramento%2C%20Verizon%20Push%20Pause%20on%20Kiosk%20Deal%2C%20ProudCity%20Builds%20Recovery%20Website%20for%20Paradise%2C%20Calif.&utm_content=email&utm_source=Act-On+Software&utm_medium=email

In addition to 5G, the city’s contract with Verizon calls for the company to provide free Wi-Fi in 27 of Sacramento’s parks; provide internship and career opportunity programs for area STEM students; utilize technology to improve public safety and improve traffic congestion at city intersections; and build multipurpose digital kiosks.

What’s in it for Verizon? As The Bee reported then, a memo in 2017 regarding the partnership said Verizon would get free use of 101 small cell towers for 10 years and low-cost rates for 5G cell locations when the technology goes commercial — as it will, officially, starting Monday.

http://www.govtech.com/network/Verizon-5G-Goes-Live-in-Parts-of-Sacramento-Calif.html