Who thought this thing would cause such a fuss?

When I watch the council meetings from home, the fun stuff always happens.

Oh well, I’ll give you my ‘tractoring’ advice from home.

I am already exhausted before I even start explaining the city council meeting tonight.

Deep breath.

I asked councilor Stehly to question why the city needs to buy a brand new snow trimmer at a cost for $300K tonight by pulling it from the consent agenda. I never thought it would turn into an argument about public input and appealing the mayor’s decision.

But it did. (please watch the spectacle – right after public input)

It amazed me that councilors Starr and Stehly (with 2 votes from Erickson and Neitzert) pulled off an appeal of the mayor’s decision to close down public input on a consent agenda item, but what was even more interesting was when the mayor asked what the appeal meant? And questioned if Starr knew more about Robert Rules then he does (yeah, he actually does, it’s kind one of his ‘things’).

So after that fight was won, a board member from Great Bear came up and testified AGAINST Stehly saying the new trimmer was needed ‘for the kids’ of course.

Poetic justice?

Well not really. Growing up on a farm and working construction I know a little bit about ‘hydraulics’ it’s those greasy tubes that have hoses that break a lot (that’s the unscientific version, but stick with me.) Before the public was ‘allowed’ to speak during a 10 minute melt-down and a confused city attorney, a Parks Department mid-manager explained that the current snow trimmer was ten years old, at the end of it’s warranty life, and had 7,000 hours on it.

Uh, okay. So?

He then tried to explain that it was at the end of it’s life. LOL.

Not quite. He continued to say that replacing the hydraulics on it (if they break) would cost around $60K.

So I guess in his world if you get a chip in the windshield of your car, you need to replace all the windows and headlights.

First off, in ‘tractoring’ life, 7,000 hours is ‘breaking it in’. That is basically 6 hours a day, 116 days for ten years.

Secondly, on the farm, if a hydraulic or hose breaks on your tractor, you don’t replace every piece, you fix the problem. It’s like saying you need to replace a $500K combine because it got a flat tire. It’s ludicrous.

There’s also the argument that if ONE of these hydraulics breaks you have to be shut down for a long period of time. Not true, a good mechanics garage with the city would have back up parts that could be replaced in a timely fashion.

So there you have it, a lesson in Roberts Rules of order and greasy tractor parts. Who says that city council meetings are not interesting?

16 Thoughts on “The Mayor doesn’t understand appeals and the council doesn’t understand hydraulics

  1. The D@ily Spin on March 22, 2017 at 8:54 am said:

    I worked with Verizon in CA and NV. To get to mountaintops they had one of the snow cats from the movie ‘Declaration of Independence’. They bought it used for a third the price of new. It had 10k hours on it and they’ve put another 10k on it. It’s good for another 10 years & 30k hours. They should be bought used. It’s expensive but justified to maintain them. If the city buys a new one, someone gets a bargain on the old one. They’ll lease it and use it 50k hours before they sell it for a good price.
    Whom at the city is being wined and dined by a salesman for this monster mistake? How much is the side bribe?

  2. The D@ily Spin on March 22, 2017 at 9:00 am said:

    This is another Redflex (traffic cameras) kickback scheme. The council must rally and stop this purchase. An eight to one vetoed vote could keep the mayor out of public office. Veto That!

  3. Blasphemo on March 22, 2017 at 12:31 pm said:

    Yeah. $300k here . . . . $300k there. Pretty soon you’re talking real money. Classic example of leaders (suits like Rolfing, Kiley, Heuther & Miss Erp) who don’t know what they don’t know – and mid-level management (read: dept. head like Kearney) who can spin the relative merits of buying new vs used simply to make their job easier . . . . . regardless of cost to all taxpayers. Sure! $300k for a new specialized machine that can only be used at one municipal amenity which appeals to a limited number of winter recreation enthusiasts for a fraction of the calendar year only under the most favorable weather conditions. Makes perfect sense. NOT.

  4. Theresa stehly on March 22, 2017 at 12:58 pm said:

    We have been hearing concerns from citizens about Park’s programs being cut because of budget shortfalls. (I have requested a list of all programs and capital projects on the chopping block.)Two programs that have been mentioned are summer singers and summer band. These affordable programs benefit children from all ecomomic backgrounds.

    The sales tax revenue has been declining across the board, and I felt replacing a functioning piece of equipment (used to smooth the snow at Great Bear), with a $300,000 new one at this time..didn’t make sense for the taxpayer. I believe it is our responsibility on the council to scrutinize these proposed purchases..especially Now.If we don’t keep watch and take action..then who will?

  5. It isn’t uncommon in the City to put a 10 year lifespan on a vehicle or piece or equipment and replace it – whether it needs to be replaced or not.

    Fortunately in some cases other departments will snatch it up and it gets used for another 3-4 years in some cases (or longer).

    The good news is: It does help eliminate waste.

    The bad news is: No one is catching or stopping the wasteful moron who didn’t extend the life out from 10 to 14 years in the first place.

    There are several mid-managers who don’t care. It’s not their money and no one is watching them. And Huether blocks the council from seeing what ‘his’ employees are doing as much as he can.

  6. Mike Kokenge Sr on March 22, 2017 at 5:23 pm said:

    Theresa, when you say summer band, I assume you mean the Sioux Falls Municipal Summer Band Concert Tour. For a lot of years this very popular venture made it’s way through nearly all the SF retirement villages. A couple years ago, the city cut this tour in half, and as a result these senior facilities were then seeing the band every other year. Is an even bigger cut in store? This would be devastating to senior facilities. The one my Mother lives in a prime example. Not only is it a yearly event all residents truly look forward to, it is also an event the auxiliary uses as a fund raising project selling baked goods and arts and crafts to the many family and friends who attend. What this city is doing absolutely makes zero sense. Last summer 49th Street from Louise Ave. going west was down a good part of last summer for road repair. Right now, as I type, that same stretch of road, that cost many 100’s of thousands to repair last summer is being ripped from the ground and hauled away. WTH. Does this city’s left hand have any idea what the right is doing?

  7. The ski lift system older than 10 years and has a lot more that 7000 hours. Why is it not being replaced?

  8. My Man Mike on March 22, 2017 at 6:08 pm said:

    Great point about 49th & Louise, Mike! The wasteful spending never ends. I saw Turbak on TV this morning whining about tax revenues being down. Yet full speed ahead on the new $25m, half-empty gov’t office building.

    And on the topic of Louise Ave – this is the 3rd time during Huether’s administration that road between 41st & 49th has been “fixed”. There was joint repair in 2011 or ’12, then a complete asphalt overlay one year later.

    The city has opted for asphalt overlays (see N Minnesota or W 41st) to extend the life of roads that really need to be replaced. But how else are you going to cover the $7-9m in annual bond payments on the EC when tax revenues are falling, too?

  9. The D@ily Spin on March 23, 2017 at 9:25 am said:

    Buying a $300k machine you use maybe 30 days a year. Then, selling one you barely used. Is this an end of March April Fool’s joke? The Parks Director can be a comic so give him an early golden parachute retirement.

  10. The D@ily Spin on March 23, 2017 at 9:29 am said:

    Sic ’em Theresa. Finally, a watch dog on the council. How do you tell a good councilor from a bad one? The good ones don’t wear thousand dollar suits.

  11. CommonSenseSD on March 23, 2017 at 11:21 am said:

    From my previous blog post reply –

    I should go buy this and lease it to the city for $30,000/year for 10 years! My god, they know you can buy these things used, right?

    http://www.resortboneyard.com/i/2004-bombardier-br-275/63731

  12. North West Sioux Falls on March 23, 2017 at 1:06 pm said:

    On the bright side, the city budget did list the price for the snowcat at $350,000, so they are saving us like $50,000. Maybe that extra 50,000 can be added to that extra 150,000 pack pay we save. Then with that saved money, we could pay to keep some summer park programs. It’s like Huether is the City Manager from Parks and Rec who bankrupted the town.

  13. How many new street sweepers could we buy with this $ 350,000.00, I ask? I myself can easily rekindle fond memories of a time gone-by, when our streets in the Spring were not cluttered with heaves of dirty leaves….

  14. Returning briefly to the issue of the consent agenda (consent calendar). My copy of Robert’s Rules of Order is the 10th edition from 2000, but I can’t imagine that it’s changed much since then. The answer is on page 350, lines 9-20. In the 11th Edition on Google Books, it’s on page 363, lines 11-32.

    First:

    “The matters listed [on the consent calendar] are taken up in order, unless they are objected to, in which case they are restored to the ordinary process by which they are placed in line for consideration on the regular agenda.”

    Second:

    Does the City Council have a “special rule of order” for considering consent agenda items? It can legitimately do so. Presumably it does, since the Council votes on consent agenda items are voted on as a single item. Without a special rule of order, the consent agenda process only applies to items appearing on the agenda without having to go through the typical rules for items reaching the agenda.

    This, of course, assumes that: 1) Sioux Falls City Council meetings are run according to Robert’s Rules; and 2) that there aren’t special rules of order that supersede Robert’s Rules in this case.

  15. l3wis on March 24, 2017 at 8:27 am said:

    MW – thanks for this rule check. It would appear that ‘YES’ the CC was following the rules correctly. By pulling an item from the consent agenda it becomes a regular agenda item in which the council can request public input. Fiddle Faddle already ruled on the matter a few weeks ago when Rolfing was running(?) the meeting.

Post Navigation