The City of Sioux Falls should move towards leasing office space

by

At Tuesday’s informational meeting there was a presentation on maintenance of the city buildings. While I understand there are some buildings we HAVE to own like fire stations I think we need to learn a lesson from COVID and when we were debating the City Center building (which is still entangled in a lawsuit over the failed HVAC system) the Finance Director at the time suggested that leasing is way more affordable than building and maintaining. And with COVID we have learned that many, if not all of the pencil pushers with the city can easily work from home.

Saving money by leasing office space makes sense on many levels. You have NO maintenance costs, no bonding costs and if you need more or less space you simply pack up the office and move.

Working from home could also save the city bundles of money in office space. Obviously many city workers can’t work from home, but I think most of the office staff could.

I also think the Mayor (he is the city manager per charter) should look into selling off city property we don’t need anymore after moving many people to work from home or to leased properties and we should use the revenue to pay down bonds on current properties like The Denty, the Bunker Ramp, the City Administration building and water treatment expansion.

I have often been baffled by not only this mayor but past mayors who want to expand FTE’s for the city (23 this year) because with advances in technology, etc, we should be finding ways to reduce the city workforce by making working conditions for city employees more efficient. I have also suggested that the city terminates most of their middle management. There really should only be team supervisors and directors. I have found following city politics over the past 15 years that middle management really does very little except talk a lot.

I believe if the city would take a 3 tier approach to our building infrastructure and workforce they could save the taxpayers millions of dollars a year. This of course would require the Mayor, any mayor, to follow the charter and do their job, which is managing the city, it’s properties and employees instead of getting in the weeds with legislative priorities which is the council’s job.

I have often taunted councilors to start violating their charter duties and start talking directly to city employees about complaints. Of course they are NOT allowed to do this by charter, so why does the mayor think it is OK to screw with the council?

I think this city could run way more efficiently if we had a mayor that actually concentrated on managing the city instead sitting in his garage coming up with cute program names. Just listen to his budget address, I couldn’t even keep track of all the acronyms he presented about employee improvement and mentoring. The only thing city employees should be trained on is CUSTOMER SERVICE to the citizens. That should always be their top priority. Holding hands and singing campfire songs doesn’t really matter when our streets are full of potholes and violent crime is on the rise. I am all for training city employees and keeping them up with the latest standards and procedures, but we need a city manager that understands that public employees serve those who pay their wages not the mayor. I have noticed since the Munson days that administrations have used city staff (mostly management) to serve their whims instead of the people.

Something needs to change with it comes to managing our city, because the current administration isn’t cutting the mustard.

Posted in: Sioux Falls

Sioux Falls City Council Agenda, May 3-5, 2021

by

State of the City Address • Mon, May 3 • 1 PM (State Theatre)

This address can be viewed via livestream at www.facebook.com/citysiouxfalls

Informational Meeting • Tue, May 4 • 4 PM

Presentations;

• ADA Transition Plan by Sharla Svennes, Assistant City Attorney and Human Relations/ADA Coordinator; Peter Blanck, Ph.D., J.D.  and James G. Felakos, J.D., Blanck Group LLC (I have no idea what this is about, no supporting documents)

• Comprehensive Housing Plan by Jeff Eckhoff, Director of Planning and Development Services; and Matt Tobias, Development Services Manager (I have no idea what this is about either, no supporting documents)

Regular City Council Meeting • Tue, May 4 • 6 PM

Item #6, Consent Agenda;

Sub Item #29, South Dakota Research Park, Inc. dba USD Discovery District, Funding Agreement providing innovation focused economic development strategies, development of public-private partnerships and to foster innovation driven industry growth. Actively support economic development and workforce development initiatives. $150K (while this is a good initiative, it would be nice to have a presentation from them on what they are doing instead of just shoving this into a consent agenda item).

Items #24-25, So this is interesting, Sanford’s Golf Shots is transferring it’s liquor license to the Sanford Event Barn, and then in the next item, the Barn is transferring its license to Golf Shots. I’m so glad one of our major health systems in Sioux Falls have all this time to horse around with liquor licenses and their ownership 🙁

Item #26, Most people know that a bar is likely going in the corner space of the Washington Square building on the main floor (even though a roof top bar would have been much cooler). So where has their liquor license been parked while they are waiting to open? Two doors down at Parlour ice cream shop. Funny, that was one of my favorite places to get ice cream last summer, and I never saw a full bar in there 🙁 The lax rules on how licenses can be ‘parked’ is ludicrous and needs to be changed.

Item #53, Second Reading, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SD, REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF W. BENSON RD. AND WEST OF N. MARION RD. FROM THE PO-PUD PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED PUD DISTRICT TO THE RA-1 APARTMENT RESIDENTIAL—LOW DENSITY AND RA-2 APARTMENT RESIDENTIAL—MODERATE DENSITY DISTRICTS, NO. 14007-2021, AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SIOUX FALLS. This is the rezoning for apartments next to the new Amazon Warehouse. As we know CountCilor Jensen has a financial conflict, and some think Selberg does also. We will see if they both recuse themselves and tell the public what that conflict is. This is a controversial item because the neighbors who have homes out there were lied to by developers, as usual, and of course the planning department plays along and says, ‘You can always ask us questions.’ Here’s one, ‘Is it hard to breathe with your heads stuck up developer’s asses?’

Item #55, 2nd Reading, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SD, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY BY AMENDING CHAPTER 77: PARKING REGULATIONS, SUBCHAPTER: PUBLIC PARKING ADVISORY BOARD. During the 1st reading several councilors suggested that they need to streamline the public boards qualifications.

Planning Commission Meeting • Wed, May 5 • 6 PM

Item 2E, Rezone for Foundation Park so they can chop up lots and spend our TIF money.

Item 2I, Rezone for Water Reclamation

Item 2J, Expansion of an existing VL Casino. Just what we need 🙁

Item 2K, More details on the expansion of the Sanford Sports Complex;

Item 5A, Rezoning from C1 to C2. This will be just north of the gas station on 18th & Cleveland. I am not sure if there is any neighborhood opposition. But what I find interesting is if you read all the documentation there is not one single mention of Dollar General in the documents. How did I figure it out? It was flagged that way in the document name ‘Dollar Gen.doc’.

This is something I have been railing on over the past couple of years where documentation in the agenda items in all the city’s public meetings is vague and hard to understand. I believe the attorney’s office in cahoots with the clerk’s and planning’s office is doing this on purpose. Why? It all goes back to the HATEFEST of Open and Transparent government.

Posted in: Mayor TenHaken, Planning Commission, SF City Council, Sioux Falls

Financial Review of the City of Sioux Falls in 2020

by

EDITOR’s NOTE: This is a guest post by Mike Zitterich. I found a lot of the information helpful. He does opine towards the end of the post, feel free to comment.

My thoughts based on studying the 2020 C.A.F.R – The City of Sioux Falls did fairly well considering the rest of the Country, Sales Tax was not as bad as first thought, and the population grew to 195,000 residents. While the sales tax remained constant from 2019, we did not seem to lose $1 compared to the year before, we simply lost our “gains” of $3,500,000 a year we have been accustomed to. Here is a list of Excise Taxes, Duties, and Imposts that I have noted within our 2020 CAFR along with our Net Position (State of the City), along with fun statistics regarding Water/Water Reclamation and Public Parking the two most hotly contested topics of the “people” …  

Direct Property Taxes:
Sales Tax (First Penny) – $67,135,048Sales Tax (Second Penny) – $67,135,016Property Tax – $70,288,580Sales Tax (Third Penny):

  1. Entertainment Tax – $7,170,446
  2. Lodging Tax – $681,346
  3. Hotel BID Tax – $1,492,011
  4. Frontage Tax – $15,362,566
  5. Other Taxes – $127,780

Duties (User Fees):

  1. Electric/Light Fees – $10,257,468
  2. Public Parking Fees – $2,585,491
  3. Landfill Fees – $10,402,978
  4. Water & Water Reclamation Fees – $74,847,388

Imposition Fees:

  1. License & Permits – $6,675,773

State Motor Vehicle Funds:

  1. SDCL 32-11-4.1 (b) – $13,475,000 (state bridge and road fund)
  2. SDCL 32-11-4.1 (c) – $10,208,000 (contributions from counties)

**The City Council should discuss ‘auditing’ these Motor Vehicle Funds Collected Each Year to determine proper collections, use of funds, manage the funds, appropriate the funds, etc. We get these funds from two sources within the law itself – Minnehaha and Lincoln Counties transfer payments quarterly (sub-section c), while the State Dept of Revenue deposits 0.335% annually into the City Treasury (subsection b). By choosing to audit these funds, we can assure that they are being properly appropriated and used. 


Total Cash In Bank Accounts – $300,345,555Net Position of City of Sioux Falls:  $1,949,969,607 or $9,999.84 Per Resident


Total Cash in Enterprise Funds (Net Position of Fund):

  • Electric/Light Fund – $9,218,960  ($29,232,123)
  • Public Parking Fund – $3,251,888 ($13,882,250)
  • Landfill Fund – $14,373,200  ($32,789,126)
  • Water & Water Reclamation Fund – $66,146,302  ($515,824,329)

NET POSITION = defined as the total net worth of the CITY OF SIOUX FALLS after Expenses, Liabilities, Debts, Future Employee Obligations are paid for…
Water & Water Reclamation Statistics:

  • Average Water/Sewer Payment of City Resident:  $1,288.27 Per 12 Months or $107.36 For 1 Month

Public Parking Statistics:

  • Public Parking Spaces – 3,973  > 67% Spaces Used or 2,661 – $971.62 Annual Space Revenue or $0.47 Per Hour

*Note:  IF we would had 95% Spaces Used it would have generated $3,721,390.44 Annually; the City 10 Year Average Spaces Used is 86% of total parking spaces; so if we use the ten year average, we can expect to generate a projected $3,369,367 in revenues for Public Parking with annual expenses of $2,638,179 + $1,200,000 Debt Payment for a negative 468,812 deficit. Our goal should be to maintain 95% Spaces Used to maintain sufficient revenues, and keep from having to use as much of the 2nd Penny Sales Tax as possible. As per the 2021 City Budget, we are projecting revenues to be $3,320,213 about on par with the 86% User Rate. 

Tuesday, 13, 2021 during the Informational Meeting, the City Council will get updated by the Finance Department of the Results of the 2020 Fiscal Season, I’d say, our finances are much better than realized, and the State of the City is in very good hands. 

My only question for the City Council is as follows – Where was the so called “emergency” or pandemic that was supposed to cause such a racket, and did the City of Sioux Falls really need to take the “CARE ACT FUNDS” based on the 2020 Financial Report. The difference in “CASH VALUE” as stated on page 28 of the C.A.F.R is $300,690,042 million dollars, roughly an increase of $54 million from the year prior. If my memory is correct, that is the same dollar amount we as a city took from the Federal Government as part of the Care Act Funding. Now, I do understand, much of those dollars are being appropriated thru-out the 2021 Budget in Capital Expenditures – but I do not see a huge decrease in Tax revenues from 2019, that we necessary had to take such federal monetary funding. So what was the so-called “Emergency” really about? 

My answer to that question, in “my opinion” was to allow the States and Municipalities to grab more and more federal dollars in order to expand their already bloated ‘budgets’ of wants and needs. Which then obligates us to federal rules, codes, regulations the more we take such funds, this tends to dampen our ability to self rely on ourselves in the sovereign whelm.
I have become a big advocate for ‘knowing’ our total TAX REVENUE as it relates to the actual budget to determine where the excessive revenues derive from over and above the actual ‘tax revenue we collect from state and local taxes (excises, duties, imposition fees). 


The City Council has approved to spend the Care Act Funds in places such as:

  • Fire and Police Academy 
  • Pay for 5 New Law Enforcement Officers
  • Pay for the Water Reclamation Projects (part of it)
  • Maintain Current Payroll and Liabilities
  • To Help pay off prior debts (which proves we could lower the 2nd Penny)

Which leads me to my next thought: “Economic Local Stimulus Plan“ 
This city is in great shape, even thru the Economic Emergency Crisis I felt was caused by many federal policies in the past, and our future; and I often thought, what if we can build a “Economic Stimulus Package” here in Sioux Falls, that encourages residents, businesses, to not only save money,  but to invest those dollars more so in the future providing us new found tax growth. 


Something I thought of more as I drove around this city, if we can lower the 2nd Penny to let’s say the 2005-2009 rate of 0.92% for two years, as we as individuals do as we manage and control our personal incomes while committing a small portion to debt, if we:

What if we held this such discussion during the summer months of 2021, as we discuss future budgets, goals, and projects, plug into that discussion a “City Wide Economic Stimulus Plan”, that that in the short term (2 years) lowers the 2nd Penny to the 2005-2009 rate of 0.92%.


The big question would be can we decrease the 2nd Penny at the same time having debt obligations, but I ask the council, what and how do private citizens deal with loss of income while affording to keep up with such obligations of debt, they simply ‘change’ or ‘amend’ the terms of the contract during that short term period of time until their income expands. Here are my thoughts to interject within conversation of passing or establishing a “Economic Stimulus Package” as it relates to the City of Sioux Falls:

Agrees to:

  • Create a Stimulus Package to Rebuild Our Economy helping businesses and individuals expand their Income;
  • Commit, or promise a % of that 2nd Penny to maintain our current debt payments, protecting that current debt;
  • Commit to no less than a 2 Year Plan (1 Election Cycle);
  • Promise to Set the Rate of the 2nd Penny back to 1.00% at the expiration of the two years;
  • Set forth a plan on to spend, invest, and build and repair Streets and Highways in Sioux Falls during the two years, and thereafter;
  • Set parameters on any new ‘tax base’ that becomes of the increased buying power in years 3, 4, 5, and beyond;
  • Set goals for businesses local and foreign to invest in new jobs, increased wages, benefits, and infrastructure within the private sector;
  • Encourage the Residents to support locally owned companies in order to build the new tax base, employment, and higher wages;
  • Create and Modernize new citywide policies regarding the 2nd Penny, any Future Debt Planning, and Prudent Use of the 2nd Penny.

I believe we have the ‘sovereign ability; to as a governing body and/or the people to adjust our tax rates at anytime as per state laws, that was proven by precedent in 2005; we can adjust them lower and higher as the need is warranted, but most importantly, in times such as these, establishing tax policy in times where we need to re-energize the economy, to benefit the long term planning of the city, is the key motivator here.


Keep in mind, the direct sales tax is tied to population growth, as it adjusts itself in subsequent years following the rate change; we should study the effects of population growth of the City as it relates to the gains or losses we have had over the past 10 years. 

Until this economic emergency crisis where many of the Multi National Corps were following C.D.C Guidelines, adapting to federal resolutions, laws, causing so many people to spend less income, the Sales Tax of Sioux Falls has constantly remained at a steady growth of $3,500,000 per year in direct comparison with the growth of our population. Even if we cut the rate of tax this year, what will the gains be in years 2, 3, and 5? 


Those are just a few points of reference I would raise as part of this economic discussion moving forward, and I think my ideas coincide with many of our stated goals of protecting the health of the city, protecting our economy, and encouraging people to invest fully into the city through private/public partnerships. 


What would a small rate cut in our sales tax mean for the people of the city, we do such a great job of maintaining reserves, managing our debt payments, to investing in the city, instead of giving back as some have stated, a ‘refund payment’ of any concurrent surplus of revenues, a small decrease in the rate would effectively accomplish the same goal, without any liability of the city, cause my theory is as such – those residents, myself included would then be able to increase our buying power, spend more locally which then affords us to collect more tax revenue, let alone attract more new jobs, tourism, and visitors to the city, in coalition with the population growth, the tax base automatically expands. 

With All Due Respect, and Continued Support, I thank you for your time…

Posted in: SF City Council, Sioux Falls

Sioux Falls City Council Agenda, 11/17/2020

by

South Dakota has just become the most dangerous place for Covid in the Nation;

Risk factors: No statewide mask mandate – 154.5 new daily cases per 100,000 people – 58.8% of Covid tests are positive

Few governors have been more defiantly anti-mask than South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, a Republican, whose state is the epicenter of Covid-19 spread. The Mount Rushmore state is recording a staggering 154.5 new Covid-19 cases per 100,000 people, on a rolling weekly average, according to the Harvard-Brown risk-assessment tool. Any state with over 25 new daily cases per 100,000 people is colored red on the map, which means it is considered “at a tipping point.” South Dakota’s risk level is more than 500% above that threshold, a breathtaking failure to manage the crisis.

That last sentence says it all; FAILURE. This is why it is important to support Councilor Starr and Brekke’s mask mandate and lingering ordinances on Tuesday. While I have been on the fence about masks mandates (I think it has more to do with giving private businesses the authority to kick people out who don’t want to follow their rules on private property and trespassing) I do think distancing people at bars and restaurants is important. I want to remind people, we all hope this is temporary and by next Spring a majority of Americans will be vaccinated. Your Civil Rights are not being infringed upon. If anything, if you go into a private store and refuse to wear a mask when asked to by the business, you are infringing on their property rights. And I would love for anybody to show me where in the Bill or Rights or US Constitution that you have the civil right to do what you want on private property. You absolutely don’t.

City Council Informational • 4 PM

October Financial Report (no supporting documents posted yet)

Regular City Council Meeting • 7 PM

Item #6, Approval of Contracts/Agreements, Sub Items 2-3,

Option to Extend: Extending agreement for contractor to provide executive coaching services and individual assessments on as-needed basis. AND Amending original agreement to include a two day strategy and vision planning for the Innovation and Technology for the next three years.

Why is the city subcontracting with a BUSINESS executive training program for over $20K? Just go to their website, they have zero mention of training or helping governments, they help BUSINESSES and train executives for private for-profit businesses. When are elected officials going to figure out that government doesn’t run like business. I don’t pay taxes to a for-profit entity, I pay them for services.

Item #21, 2nd Reading, Another $18 Million+ towards wastewater.

I asked someone the other day in city government, ‘Where has our public works director Mark Cotter been?’ Sure, he has been quietly working from home on things, but remember how much of a public, public official the former mayor made him? Why is our Public Works director in the shadows these days? I don’t know the answer, but many people are curious.

Item #22, 2nd Reading. So we spend $250K on Covid tourism and $20K on educating people about Covid spread. Makes sense 🙁

Section 2. That the use of the unobligated fund balance of $20,000 for the 2020 health budget is authorized to fund a public health education campaign to encourage preventative measures to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.

Item #23, 1st Reading, Allowing city employees to carry over vacation time into 2021;

Any unused vacation hours remaining in an employee’s accumulated balance in excess of maximums identified above as of 12 midnight on December 31 of each year shall be forfeited, except as specifically set forth in this Code. The above-forfeiture provision shall not apply for the calendar year ending December 31, 2020.

This one would make sense if you had your employees work thru a pandemic and couldn’t travel, because they were working, but this ONLY makes sense in the private sector. The public sector has been working from home for months or not working at all, so we are going to reward them on our dime by letting them carry over ‘vacation time’? Really?! I can almost Guaran ‘F’ing’ Tee that if taxpayers knew about this and had a voice in the matter, they would say HELL NO! I have PTO I have to burn up this year, and I can guess my employer wouldn’t let me float it next year due to Covid. Rules are Rules folks, but it seems public employees don’t have to follow them. If the city council had any gnuts at all they would kill this in an 8-0 vote on 1st Reading, but it’s not their money, so it will pass.

Item #32-33, 1st Reading, Repealing the 5G Tower agreement in McKennan Park. Once again, our all knowing city attorney’s office has a monkey screwing the football and didn’t even know the names of the entities involved in the deal. Go read the documents online, it’s a laugh fest. While we want to embrace 5G technology, we have no idea who is providing that technology.

Item #34, Emergency 1st reading of business regulations.

Item #35, Emergency 1st reading of a mask mandate.

Item #36, a ‘polite’ resolution reminder from the mayor to wear a mask. I’m surprised he didn’t also ask you to eat a turkey sandwich through your mask next week. Now that’s a ONE Sioux Falls challenge I would like to see. Maybe we could livestream it on FB while reading a children’s book?

Item #37, Resolution, to add a storage freezer for a Covid vaccine. Finally some planning from the city. Probably the only item on the agenda Tuesday night that will get full support from the council. They should also purchase a microwave, I prefer my vaccine to be at least tepid.

EDITOR’S NOTE: I also want to point out that not only has our city government been derelict in their duties managing Covid, they also have been doing the same when it comes to open meetings. Besides titling agenda items to read like a Latin Mass Litany, they have been failing for months to provide citizens with hard copies of these ordinances at the meetings and not just at regular council meetings but at other public board meetings. Some would argue when you have 5 very capable council staffers that could do this, two of which make over $100K a year, that maybe it is laziness. Sure they follow the letter of the law by providing the documents online, but why doesn’t the state’s largest city do all the law commands of it? I don’t think this is because of laziness. I think this is being done intentionally and commanded by City Council Leadership (Neitzert) and the Mayor’s administration in their ‘HATEFEST’ towards open government. If that statement is untrue, prove me wrong. What sad, sad, sad individuals in their sad, sad, sad quest for power. And as for the city council staff that bows to these commands, you are sad, sad, sad public servants for not standing up to them.

Posted in: 1st Amendment, Corona Virus, SF City Council, Sioux Falls, US Constitution

Sioux Falls City Councilor Greg ‘Ethically Challenged’ Neitzert responds to killing public input

by

I was going to stay away from an extensive blog post on why keeping public input at the beginning of the meeting was important. I have literally ranted about freedom of speech, open government and the 1st Amendment for over 13 years on my blog.

Our founding fathers made it #1 for a reason, dissent and grievances towards your government make your government better because we hope our elected officials are modeling legislation out of what we find important to the majority but more importantly the minority;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Sometimes this happens, sometimes it does not. But if those leaders are NOT willing to listen or put us to the back of the line, you can guarantee they do NOT think what we say is important (while digging in our pockets to fund the very government they run).

I have to respond to this long and extensive rant by Councilor Nutzert on Facebook today. You may not agree with all my retorts, but give me a listen;

Late last week a postcard hit mailboxes in Sioux Falls.  That postcard was a “call to action” regarding a vote the City Council will have on Tuesday night regarding our general public input.  That postcard was misleading, irresponsible, and inflammatory.  It uses the technique of creating a false “rich vs poor”/”developer vs average citizen” conflict.  It also makes the irresponsible allegation that City Councilors and the Mayor care about rich people and developers, but don’t care about the “average citizen”.

Everything Greg says in this paragraph is hyperbole. The very people who have funded the campaigns of most of the city council (even some I support) have been from the ruling class. Those who support public input at the beginning of the meetings have pointed out the truth; the very business people showing up to the meetings to do business have a financial stake in the decisions made. In other words waiting an extra 30 minutes to do their business doesn’t cost them a dime, they are probably actually going to be financially rewarded. That goes for the developer getting millions in a tax rebate to the small theatre owner getting a beer license. Waiting is the cost of doing business. As for the citizens, who fund the lion’s share of city government, we are there on our own time. If anything, public input should be moved, before the invocation and pledge of allegiance.


I’m going to set the record straight, and then move on.  This issue is really much ado about nothing.  It is procedural and has no impact on citizens day to day life.

Wow! He is right that it is procedural, procedurally moving citizens to the back of the line, dead last in the dark of the night. They even have the gall to say you can’t talk about the meeting that just occurred. Greg’s statement reminds of when Monty Python famously says, “It’s only a fleshwound.”


Council meetings, like many other governmental bodies meetings, have a designated time that people can talk to the elected body about anything that they want that is NOT already on the agenda.  We call this our “general” public input time.  We allow up to 30 minutes of general public input (3 minutes per person).  You can talk to us about ANYTHING, and people do.  It may be completely irrelevant to the city.  

Greg leaves out that not only is it state law to allow this time in most public meetings, it is covered by the US Constitution and a recent Supreme Court ruling.


We also allow public input on every agenda item at our meeting.  Agenda items can be many things – approval of a new beer license, a rezoning of a property, annexation of land into the city, an ordinance to create a new law in the city, a fee increase proposal, and so many other things.  Any citizen can give input on these agenda items.  They may support it.  They may be the applicant requesting it.  They may oppose it.  They may be a neighbor who opposes what a builder/developer/owner is trying to do.  They may oppose a rate increase, or a new restriction.  They are all citizens.  Interested parties for agenda items, and those giving input are not just “developers” or “rich people”.  They are citizens who may have deep concern about a new law, a new fee increase, or something that might happen near their home or neighborhood.

Yes, but these are very separate from general input, this is reserved for things NOT on the agenda, and that is why they take precedent over the upcoming business. And unlike the welfare queens that come each week to fatten their pockets on the regular agenda, they are welcome to bitch and complain also during this time, and some do.


Regardless of the order of our meetings, SOMEONE has to wait.  It is not a choice of making citizens wait or not, it is a matter of WHICH citizens should have to wait. 

Ironically, he is right (in this statement alone) and the tradition is to allow the people who own this government to speak first. Rich or poor, contributors or bloodsuckers. Come at the beginning and get your dissent on.

Should those that are there to speak, support, or oppose an agenda item (that is urgent because it is up for approval) and may affect them personally have to wait, or should those who are there to talk about something that is not on the agenda, and may not even be something the Council has jurisdiction over, have to wait.  Whatever you think is the right answer, I only ask that you recognize that you are asking some citizens to wait, no matter what.

Okay, we call this ‘splitting hairs’. As I linked above in the 2018 SCOTUS ruling, as long as what you are saying is ‘germane’ to government business (which is most everything), your statements are protected by the 1st Amendment. Nothing anyone says at these meetings has more importance than the other. Where the line is drawn is what is more important? Dissent or business? I think our founding fathers found dissent of the citizens is more important than those who seek refuge from our government in favorable taxes, fees and licenses, which have ZERO affect on our health, happiness and wellbeing. If Developer ‘X’ gets a massive tax rebate or favorable rezoning, the trickle down effect to the public as a whole is so minute you could measure it with a pubic hair.

  
As an example this Tuesday night, general public input will be first, because that’s where it is set at this point. 

And why is that Greg?

That means those citizens who want to speak about the proposed mask mandate will have to wait.  Are they “less than” those who are there to speak about something not on the agenda?  Ironically, those who are there to speak on THIS ISSUE (where to put public input) will have to wait for those that speak at general public input because this issue is an agenda item.  It would be odd to argue that citizens there to speak on this ordinance to change where general public input is held are less valuable than those actually speaking at the general public input time. 

As I said above, Greg is just circling back to hyperbole. The agenda is separate from public input. Always has been. I often tell people the official business of the council doesn’t start until the agenda items are presented. So yes, people have to wait.

 
The ONLY choice is WHO – WHAT CITIZENS – should have to wait.  Everyone will get their chance to speak, the only difference is who and what goes first.

And you think the ‘business’ of the city should go first, which as I have said is just you and your fellow rubberstampers doling out our money. Let’s put it to you another way, it would be like your employer putting you on a pay schedule in which you are paid one week in advance instead of being paid after you completed your required hours a week later.


A few other important notes: 1. In recent years, around 75% of general public input has been given annually from 10-12 citizens.  That means 10-12 citizens out of almost 200,000 are using the vast majority of public input time. We are literally allowing ourselves to be held hostage by a dozen citizens of our city.

First off, let’s state the obvious, Greg took that statistic directly from of his ass. Secondly, until the census is done, that 200K number from certain elected officials seems to grow like a whitehead on a teenagers nose, thirdly, citizens have not held anyone ‘hostage’ on the city council, in fact, I would argue it is the exact opposite, as councilor Brekke said, you are OUR guests, not the other way around. The 1st Amendment is NOT based on how many people speak on a specific topic. The same person could come to every single council meeting for the next 20 years and be the only person to speak, it would still not change the dynamic of that right.

2.  Anyone who has watched general public input in recent years has seen that while there are some great things that are brought to us, the majority consistently are items we have no jurisdiction over, are the same people, and are mostly grandstanding and self serving.  I’ll be very blunt, general public input has degraded into an embarrassing spectacle. It does not reflect well on our meeting or our city.  

I agree 100% it has become ’embarrassing’ and mostly because the citizens have been pointing out the ridiculous (and fraudulent) actions of this council. Greg said it best, he is embarrassed, and he should be, I can give him 26 million reasons why. If our elected leaders in this city have done such a great job why do we have a city attorney’s office? Maybe we should make an amendment to disband that entity.

3.  We rarely have Boy Scouts and other children at our meetings, and they’ve told us they no longer come or don’t stay because the public input can be so outrageous and inappropriate at the beginning of our meetings.  They could be learning about the civic process, but they don’t anymore.

So I heard this argument last week from a text sent to me, and I about died laughing. Public input is the ‘perfect’ example of learning about the civic process. Teaching our youth about Freedom of Speech and Open Government is the finest of civic lessons. I think little Johnny should learn and engage his parents about the homeless, prostitution and drug dealers. Why would we want to hide this from our children? Does Greg really believe our children are this naive? Sometimes the only way I learn what atrocities that our taking place in our community is by listening to citizens lay them out at Public Input. The only way you fix these problems is by recognizing them first.

4.  The vast majority of people tell me our general public input is not valuable, it is an embarrassment to our city and they want us to do something about it.

Well, then, why move it, just get rid of it. Seriously. Wipe it completely off the agenda. Oh, that’s right, like I have mentioned above it is against the US Constitution and State Law, and if you did that, you would all go to jail. So what is the difference if a citizen tells you suck at the beginning or at the end? This argument is just as childish as the person who is making it. He should get a badge for Bullsh*t.

5.  There are a LOT of ways to give your elected officials input.  Call, email, send a letter, use social media, talk to an agenda item, etc.  General public input is just one, and its frankly one of the least effective.

I also agree with Greg on this. In fact the reason I started a blog is because I felt my letters to the editor, my public input and our lazy ass local media were not cutting the mustard. But if you think our city council is responding to these other forms of contact, you are sadly mistaken. One of the reasons many show up to the public input is because they get ZERO response from councilors. I have had citizens tell me with real concerns about zoning and crime in our city they have NEVER gotten responses from the current and former mayor and 80% of the council. Then they wonder why they come on Tuesdays and chew ass? Greg, is it that hard of a math equation?

6.  Many of our city employees are hourly employees.  When they have to come to meetings to speak to an agenda item, they are being paid to sit there. All of those employees are being paid tax dollars to sit through the general public input. 

What Greg leaves out is that they receive flex time for those hours. In other words if an hourly city employee has to work two extra hours on Tuesday, they can work two less hours in the remainder of the week. As for the directors who mostly speak at these meetings, they are salary, they get their mostly 6-figure paychecks no matter how many hours they work. Boo Hoo. What Greg is saying in this statement is that he represents the city employees, who we pay, over the very people who pay them. Our city councilors are elected to represent us. It is in the freaking charter! It is the mayor’s job to represent the city employees, which I have heard he tried to screw in the last union negotiation.

7.  Many applicants who have agenda items need to have their attorneys, engineers, and other representatives at meetings.  They are paying them usually hourly, and they have to arrive at the beginning of the meeting because they don’t know when their agenda item will come up.  They are being paid to sit through the general public input. 

8.  Even if you think “developers”, “builders” or whatever you wish to refer to these applicants are “less than”, consider that they (or an average citizen) who get on the agenda, have paid significant fees to do so.  They have paid to have us consider their agenda item.  Why is it a given that they should have to wait and those there with nothing on the agenda get to “jump the line”.  Why is that automatically right?

And like I already said above, that is the price of doing business in a capitalist society. Did Greg vote for Bernie Sanders?


We have had any number of big items on our agendas over the years that citizens have cared deeply about.  In my 4 years on the Council, we have had proposals to big large apartments near or next to single family, fee increases, bonding millions of dollars including the parking ramp downtown, the downtown city center building, and the water treatment plant.  All of these items are HUGE decisions and impact citizens directly, and in many cases citizens see them as life changing for them.  They are average citizens.  They aren’t the applicants.  They aren’t developers, rich people, or whatever other term you wish to use if you accept the rich vs poor/developer vs average citizen division.  They have to wait if you leave general public input where it is.  


The rhetoric of making this into a developer vs average citizen is inflammatory and meant to rile people up and divide us.  It should be rejected.

You are correct. Let’s reject it, and leave public input as is. Personally, I hate having to bring it up, because I know it embarrasses the Mayor and Council that you consistently kiss their rings. All this ‘division’ could end when you realize that the public IS who you serve. We only bring this up because it is true. If it bothers you so much, maybe you should turn off your sucking device?


Wherever you come down on this, just realize you are asking citizens to wait their turn.  The only decision is WHO should wait.  There are many elderly, “average” citizens (using the postcard terminology) who want to speak to agenda items, and you are asking them to wait if you have general public input at the beginning of the meeting.  


Those who support moving general public input to the end of the meeting care about citizens, and they care about input.  Saying or implying that they don’t is irresponsible and a unfounded personal attack on their character.

Is it? Because I have yet to hear from one of the ‘specials’ in our community that having to wait an extra 30 minutes is hurting their businesses. They don’t have to say anything because they have puppets like you Greg to defend them, because they have spent a lot of capital making sure you do what is best for them, including crying on Facebook they deserve to go to the front of the line. I would expect the very business people of this community you defend to testify on Tuesday night that public input at the beginning of the meetings has hurt their bottom lines. I’m guessing that number of dissenters will be a big fat ZERO.

Remember every agenda item allows for citizen input, does that matter?
If you accept the premise that moving general public input is “oppressing” citizens, you must necessarily concede that if you support keeping general public input at the beginning of the meetings, you are “oppressing” all citizens there to speak on an agenda item.  You must be consistent.

And we have been consistent. We have it at the beginning. Why do you want to change this sacred consistency? Why do you choose to ‘oppress’?


To repeat again, what should be first, items that are pressing and on the agenda, or items that are not on the agenda (and may never be).  That’s the choice.  It is not a for or against citizens, or for or against input.  Period.  


I have learned in my time on the Council that people care about items that affect their lives.  If we vote to fix their road, raise fees on their water bill, they care about that.  Our procedures at our meetings don’t affect people’s lives.  It’s inside baseball.  While a few people are VERY loud and make it appear there is controversy or wide public sentiment, it does NOT represent the vast majority of citizens.

Your procedures don’t affect lives????!!! Was that a typo?

As a guy I heard on FB recently talking about Trump’s apparent loss, “We’ve had enough of your nonsense, grab your tape and boxes, and pack it up.”

Our constitution is meant to protect the minority. Read it, you freaking moron!

You can decide what citizens should wait, but don’t fool yourself.  No matter what you choose, you are making citizens wait.

I’m going to simply this all for you and make it shorter than Greg’s diatribe. The 1st Amendment guarantees your right to dissent your government. Period. And any government official who wants to mess with that precious right is full of garbage and should resign, I have plenty of tape and boxes if you need them.

Posted in: 1st Amendment, Ethics, Greg Neitzert, Open Government, SF City Council, Sioux Falls