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);
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.
As I mentioned on Sunday, I was wondering when the public would get an update. So over 24 hours later the communications officer finally did a press conference in which he basically denied that the guy arrested for hitting a cop car was NOT the suspect. Fast forward to Tuesday, and court records filed show another story, he is the main suspect in the shooting. So why did the communications officer either lie, mislead, or simply did not know the correct information from a crime that occurred over 24 hours earlier?
I don’t know, but it is further cements my belief that this city is being ran like a rudderless ship and if there is no competent captain at the helm it trickles down to the other departments.
City Council’s Tuesday meeting was full of NO decisions
Speaking of a rudderless ship, the SS Minnow, better known as the Sioux Falls City Council did not disappoint last night, because when they are not rubber stamping, they are sitting on the fence, and there was a lot of fence sitting.
It all started with a debate over who should pay for a road in a new development (deferred a week). Then it went into garbage can ordinances (I think the council is still divided on this and the mayor may have to break the tie). But the big debate of the night is raising fees on vacant properties. While I originally supported higher fees, after watching the discussion last night, I’m not sure that is the ultimate solution.
The first issue is compliance. I think you first must be registered with the city as a vacant property, if you are not, the city certainly can’t fine you. Anybody could have a vacant property, and as long as you keep the lawn mowed and snow shoveled and the heat, water and electric on, who would know if it was vacant without asking the owner (who could lie).
The second factor is, even if they do figure out which properties are vacant, will the property owner be able to pay? Mr. Tobias, the code enforcement overlord did say he would work with owners who are looking to sell or use community development loans to fix up, so that is positive. But the more I think about it, we should just be starting a pilot program as I have suggested to start cleaning up the core neighborhoods, and we wouldn’t have to worry about this. There is an entire block on my street that is vacant (3 houses and 2 businesses) and falling in disrepair. I have been told by code enforcement that they have been working with the property owner. Really? You told me this 5 years ago.
I still think a hand up approach may work better then a catch and release and fine (that will never get paid). It is time for the city to start investing in the core neighborhoods.
The Charter Revision will be reviewing my 3 proposals and I will be present for questions. They have written preliminary language if they agree to put them on the ballot. While I did ask for 30 days for a director to become a resident, Commissioner Zylstra is recommending 6 months, which I could agree to. We will see how that plays out.
I also see that Joe Kirby is proposing that the mayor be removed from the council meetings as chair and that city council elections be decided by plurality (or ranked choice). I have never agreed with a run-off in the council races. Another bone head idea from Rex Rolfing. I have also said that the Mayor should only have VETO power and NOT break ties or run meetings. If it is a tie, the measure should fail.
The two big items under 1st reading are the wastewater bonds from the state (inevitable) and the garbage container ordinance. Neitzert is basically providing an amendment to leave it as is. I have often thought that it should be up to the consumer as to where they place the containers. If they want to place at the end of the driveway, fine. If they want to leave by house, also fine. There should be NO extra charges for a valet service. Since this will most likely remain private for the foreseeable future it should be up to the consumers to dictate what they want. As for the drivers getting injured for grabbing cans, that is part of the hazards of the job. Wear the proper footwear. My mailman wears cleated snow boots in the winter.
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.
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.
A. 2022 Experience Sioux Falls (Convention and Visitor Bureau for Sioux Falls) BID Tax Budget by Teri Schmidt, Executive Director (if you look at the PP presentation you will find it is interesting how since the Events Center has arrived that city’s tourism revenue really hasn’t gone up that much. My suspicions are because the Denty has been only a money vacuum sending most of its profits out of town and not recirculating entertainment dollars in our community. Just another money pit.)
B. Vast Broadband – Communication & Design Update by Mike Harry, Chief Business Development Officer; Jeff Seidenfaden, Chief Commercial Officer; and, Cash Hagen, Chief Operating Officer (I think this will be an interesting presentation. I’m curious who inspired VAST to have a change of heart? I’m even more curious how the city allowed the goofy green towers to be installed to begin with?)
Item #7, Change Orders, Sub Item #5, $39K more for the chairlift replacement at Great Bear.
Item #33, Special One-Day Malt Beverage and Special One-Day Wine Licenses for Community Indoor Tennis Center Inc., 4210 North Bobhalla Drive, for a fundraiser on November 5, 2021. (I find it curious that they don’t call the facility by it’s name, Huether Family Match Pointe. Kind of wondering how that place is doing. Would be nice to get a presentation on how they spent our $500K yet have given the public virtually nothing in return for that handout.)
Items #41-42, 2nd Reading, Med MJ. I would expect a lot of amendments. I do know that around 4-5 councilors have amendments. One of them would be lowering the license fee to $25K. These two items alone will make for a very long night.
Item #44, 1st Reading, Property Tax Increase. Once again the Rubber Stamp Council will increase our taxes even though they have NO real reason to do so. Just because. Ironically in the same year they gave away around $144 Million in TIFs. (I have said $200 million in the past, and I am correcting that statement. It was $94 to the Development Foundation and $25 to Sioux Steel and $25 to Cherapa II)
Item #50, 1st Reading, Chief Matt Burns (Firing) Range Naming. As if the night couldn’t get more ridiculous the Mayor has asked the Naming Commission and the City Council to approve this naming at the new public safety facility. Am I the only one that finds it a bit ironic that a ‘firing’ range is being named after him? Maybe Mayor Poops is sending some kind of subtle message about why Burns left the city? We may never know.
Item #53, Resolution, Main Street BID Tax. For several years many downtown business owners have asked what they get for this special tax roll. DTSF does use the money and staff to promote Downtown (if you pay membership dues) and do have a cleaning crew (which I think the city’s Parks and Rec department should be doing). But does this BID help provide healthcare insurance options for small business owner’s employees? Business insurance? Short term business loans or grants? Nope. Nadda. Zilch. It seems all the BID tax really does is pay salaries of those who work for DTSF. I would love it if they would do a presentation on what they are doing to actually help DT businesses thrive economically. Because watering plants and marketing a Burger Battle isn’t cutting it.
The CRC will begin taking recommendations from the public. I will present my 3 ideas during public input since the city wants regular citizens jumping through hoops to bring them in advance and get on the agenda. Here is my exchange with the city’s paralegal in emails;
To:Â Greco, Tom Cc:Â Hanzel, Cari Subject:Â Re[2]: Charter Revision Commission
Tom, thanks for the assistance.
Cari, so as I understand Tom, I can just present my ideas during public input for consideration? Correct? and give the CRC members a copy of my proposals at that time?
Thanks
Her response;
Hello Mr. Ehrisman:
The Charter Revision Commission’s preferred practice is to submit your proposal, to include a copy of the Article section(s) with the proposed amendments made in underlined/strike-through format, to them at least a week ahead of the meeting you would like to attend so that it could be added to the agenda. At their initial meeting in August, the Commission set out a schedule of when they would be reviewing each Article. I believe Tom provided that schedule to you already. It would make the most sense to put your proposal on the agenda for the meeting that the Commission will address that relevant Article. All that being said, you are always welcome to address the Charter Revision Commission during public input at any meeting and submit your proposal(s) at that time. The down side to that is the time limit of 5 minutes. If presented during public input, the Commission may decide to address your proposal(s) at a later date and/or when that particular Article comes up for review in their schedule.
Do you have proposals that relate to Articles I-III? If so, and they are ready to go,  I can check into the possibility of amending the agenda to include your proposal as a formal recommendation under the appropriate Article for the meeting next week. Let me know what Article sections you are looking at and we can figure out the best way to proceed. Thank you!Â
My response back, in which I received no response, and didn’t expect one;
Cari, I have no idea where my articles would fit in, I am not a city attorney, and I don’t believe it is the duty of a citizen to try to hunt it down in the city charter, that would be the responsibility of the CRC and the City attorney’s office. My only responsibility is presenting my ideas to the commission. I know it is not in your wheelhouse to tell the CRC what to do, but this is prime example of poor customer service to citizens, which I believe is done purposely to discourage participation, there really is no other excuse. Citizens should be able to present their ideas to the CRC and the CRC can decide to craft the proper language and article in which it applies. I also believe that there should be NO time limit on presenting ideas to the CRC. I should be afforded at least 5 minutes for each item. I will present my ideas to the CRC in public input and ‘try’ to figure out the articles it applies to. Thank you for you time. Scott L. Ehrisman
As I have mentioned in the past, even if my revisions make the ballot (which I doubt they will since the CRC is only interested in killing citizen ideas) I’m not so sure they would pass. As the CRC has said in the past they are concerned about putting revisions on the ballot because they almost always pass. I think I would have to educate a lot of folks to get passage. I am still refining my revisions, but I can tell you they concern TIFs, Public Input and City Directors. You will have to tune in on Wednesday to hear them 🙂
