Entries Tagged 'SF City Council' ↓

Okay, more speculation from SF #1 conspiracy theorist, Detroit Lewis.

After watching public input last night at the regular council meeting, I became a bit suspicious as to why 25 minutes was spent on a non-agenda item, an indoor pool at Spellerberg. In an almost rehearsed well choreographed presentation, each speaker came up to the podium to tell the mayor and council why we need an indoor pool at Spellerberg. At first I thought, “Shouldn’t they be addressing the public (voters) instead of the mayor and council?” The issue whether we build an ‘outdoor’ pool at Spellerberg will be on the municipal ballot in 2014. The key word here is ‘Outdoor’ I also found it a bit strange since the election was over a year away. When Citizen Stenga approached the podium and made this remark, “It’s a good thing CITIZENS will be voting on this.”

Or will they?

I’ve been researching whether the mayor and city council can legally trump the Spellerberg petitioners by either;

- Approving an indoor facility before the election, which could possibly make their petitions null and void, OR

- Putting an indoor facility on the ballot with the outdoor facility. This seems more like a reality. Why? Well the Spellerberg petitioners kind of pigeon holed themselves by setting a price tag for an outdoor pool, where the city can pretty much just say;

Do you want a $7 million dollar outdoor facility that you can only use 3 months out of the year, OR an indoor facility (Pricetag to be determined) that you can use all year?

Obviously this wouldn’t be the EXACT ballot language, but you get the gist of what I am getting at. City Hall is up to something. The city has been denied an indoor facility TWICE by the voters, and there is certain people in City Hall that are not going to let the VOTERS turn this down again. Keep your eyes peeled, something smells fishy.

Citizen Stenga & Tree Trimming

As I mentioned above, Tim gave another Oscar performance last night. Besides the pool issue, Tim talked about the city trimming boulevard trees. He said, in the past during Project TRIM, the city would charge you $150 per tree to trim your (their) boulevard trees, but during the ice storm that city was paying anywhere from $30 to $90 per tree for contractors to trim back any hangers or potential troublesome branches (according to Tim). Tim questioned the difference, he also questioned why isn’t the city just trimming these trees all the time? To which the mayor blurted out “We are not trimming the trees!” Ah, yes you are, because one of my boulevard trees was trimmed, and I did not do it. So either the city did it, a contractor they hired did it, or the tree fairies came in the middle of the night and did it. Either way Mike, your lies are going to start catching up with you, you wouldn’t want to make GOD unhappy with you? Would you?

City will buy the State Theatre a film projector

(to help underpriviledged kids watch movies for FREE).

The city approved the $63,000 expenditure as long as the State gives away FREE tickets to ‘deprived’ kids in exchange.

(Image: KELO-TV)

City ordinance was changed last night to allow the Overlook Café to apply for a malt beverage license and sell alcohol during regular business hours.

I am all for the café providing alcohol during special and catered events. The café has done this in the past, but I am have trouble grasping why they need to sell during regular hours?

Good question.

First off, I don’t think this is going to add much to the Overlook Café’s bottom line. Many other family restaurants/cafes downtown provide beer and wine, and most would tell you that it really doesn’t help/or harm the business, so why the big push at Overlook?

WILD SPECULATION

Remember what the first proposal for the Overlook Café was? It was proposed to make it a fine dining, privately ran full service restaurant. I cannot recall why that idea was ever turned down, but I do know that it is something that CAN be done in the future simply by changing the contract or lease agreement.

You will have to give Milstead credit, she understands that working with local government, you have to take baby steps all the way. Her husband has worked in public service most of his life, he for one knows things don’t get done overnight. Milstead understands her first step was getting approval of this ordinance change and eventually her license. I ‘speculate’ once she proves she can provide alcohol safely during regular business hours she will propose changing the café into a full-service restaurant, and she may even want to take it a step further by changing the way the café profit shares with the city and convert it to a lease agreement.

This of course is speculation on my part, but I am still scratching my head why she fought so hard to sell beer with ice cream cones, hot dogs and cookies. .

Don’t get me wrong, I think a full-service restaurant in that location is a wonderful idea, and have often wondered why it was turned down to begin with. Food for thought.

Director Cooper says we have to ‘Start Over’.

Not sure if you watched the SF City Council meeting last night, but you missed a doozy. (FF to 52:00)

Mike Cooper pretty much throws the Shape SF petitioners under the bus. He drags his community development manager up to the podium to cry about how senior low-income housing is being delayed due to going back to the old zoning laws. While the CD Manager admits during his testimony they have been working on funding this project for several years, (Remember, Shape SF just passed the city council last month) When Director Cooper is asked by Councilor Anderson if this project was in the works before Shape SF passed, Cooper says , ‘NO!’ To which Anderson just shakes his head. Then Cooper says, “Ah, we were in a transition period.” Now I am not saying Cooper is lying, but . . . . It seems the planning office ‘just assumed’ Shape SF would pass, so they started using the new ordinance before it was voted on by the council. And I thought I was good at predicting the city council, looks like Cooper has me beat.

It seems the city has started their ‘Hater’ campaign against the petitioners to.

Film Projector, A ‘City Council’ expense?

If you look at ITEM #44, 1^st Reading, you will see that the council is appropriating the $1.8 million dollar surplus. Cleverly hidden under a ‘City Council’ expense is $63,000 for a film projector, for THE STATE THEATRE. While I am extremely supportive of the State Theatre and the asset it will be DT, I am a little weary about buying them a projector since the Theatre has established itself already as a non-public entity (not owned by the city). The city has already given a gracious gift to help make repairs to the building. I think the State will do just fine without any more handouts from the city. I do know that councilors Staggers and Anderson plan to amend this expense in the 2^nd reading.

No Hotel, No small meeting rooms but lots of excuses

Gotta love the CVB. On the run up to building the EC they were cheerleaders about how we need a larger entertainment facility to bring in bigger conventions. Now that the building is being constructed they are back to more excuses, NO second-site HOTEL, Convention center needs more small meeting rooms, blah, blah, blah. Here’s the deal folks, we don’t need a bigger convention center and we certainly don’t need a 12,000 seat EC. But hey, when the subsidies start piling up we will at least have plenty of excuses.

In a historic move, the city is planning to change city ordinance so a vendor can be allowed to serve alcohol at a city park (Item #45).

While I am not opposed to serving alcohol at Falls Park (heck, you can walk over to the Silver Moon if you really need a drink) I think they should use the license for catered events only, like weddings. I really don’t see the need for a family cafe serving beer. I also find it unusual the city and the council would jump thru so many hoops to make this possible. I guess it is ‘who you know’ not ‘what you know’ in this town

I was Councilor Staggers guest for the first segment of ‘Inside Town Hall’ for the May edition. We talked about the upcoming vote on snowgates, how they work, and the petition drive. Stehly was supposed to do the show, but had a conflicting appointment.

It should start airing on CityLink on Monday or Tuesday. Not sure when it will be online.

MMM? Master of Puppets?

From my email box;

As of December 31, 2012, City debt was $398,868,664. The most significant debt-related transaction since September was the final bond sale for the Events Center Project which occurred in October. At that time, the City raised the remaining $12.5 million needed to fund the Events Center.

Tracy D. Turbak, CPA – Finance Director – City of Sioux Falls, SD

In the Mayor’s State of the city address he talked about how our city was in great financial shape and that we have $45 million in reserves. I am no accountant, but I would think the $400,000 million dollar debt wouldn’t classify us being in ‘great financial shape.’

Also if you FF to almost the end of the informational you will see an interesting exchange between Jamison and Tracy Turbak. Jamison asks Tracy why the mayor has been holding press conferences without including the council (in reference to the Walmart announcement and the City Survey). Turbak told Greg that he wouldn’t answer the question because he didn’t think the question was ‘relevant’. Turbak didn’t answer the question because he knows the real answer, “I do what my boss tells me to do.” Jamison never did get an answer. A city official told me yesterday this issue is coming to a boiling point and something is gonna happen very soon. The rest of the council actually agree with Jamison on this issue. Prepare to see a battle royal between the council and mayor on this one. I hope the council holds it’s own press conference calling the mayor out on this issue.

I warned SF city councilors before approving TIF #17 that the TIF was unneeded since Costco already intended on buying the land whether it was contaminated or not. Councilor Jamison said this at yesterday’s informational meeting;

“. . . read in the SF Business Journal the Costco property sold for $4 million . . . caught my attention TIF #17 that we passed . . . the TIF was for 30 acres, and 15 acres was sold to Costco, anyway, the point is, we provided a $4.9 million TIF for that project, he (Developer, Dunham Companies) paid $2.1 million for the land, sold half of it for $4 million, that means he owns the other half he is going to put the apartment complex on  . . . nothing . . . I suppose . . . he made out like a bandit.”(sic)

Essentially, the developer is getting $8.9 million for a $1 million dollar investment. WOW! It would be like getting a property tax break that was 4x the value of your home. Of course, Diamond Jim defended the TIF saying it was needed to develop the land and sell. What a load of crap. Dunham made out better then a bandit, that was highway robbery of the highest order.

Jamison suggested that in the future that the council gets told what the property ‘may’ be sold for before awarding a TIF, he also suggested there be a mechanism to revoke a TIF if this kind of boondoggle happens in the future. I saw this hoodwink a mile away.

After several months of holding it in, I finally let Council Chair Erpenbach and the rest of the council know how I felt about public input and censorship at the council working session yesterday.

I told them that 1st Amendment rights organizations like the National Coalition Against Censorship defend council rules when it comes to public input WITHIN THE LAW. I reminded them what city ordinance was, ’5 Minutes Per Person’ and by not following that ordinance they are in a sense violating city charter and breaking the law. I recommended that in the future it would be unwise to violate this ordinance again because next time there ‘would be consequences.’ I also reminded them that they take a oath of office to uphold the US Constitution, the State Constitution and the City Charter. They are bound by that oath to NOT violate city ordinances. I also told them that they are well within their rights to limit discussion ONCE the discussion has started if someone is being disruptive or even repetative.

I told Michelle she was not being totally truthful when she said Munson limited discussion. While I agreed that he did, he only did it AFTER the discussion had started and if people were being insulting or disruptive. I said,

“He never ONCE sent out an email 24 hours in advance to the council about limiting a discussion that hadn’t even started.”

Michelle mumbled something about MMM giving her latitude on how to run the meetings. I didn’t want to get into a long rant with her about how the MAYOR is the administer of the meetings and it is actually his duty to decide where the public discussion is going-NOT HERS. They seem to be pointing the finger back and forth on this, and it is getting tiresome.

Councilor Dean Karsky asked, “Shouldn’t the council have a set policy on public input?” DEAN! YOU ALREADY DO! It is set in city charter, 5 MINUTES PER PERSON! Follow the ordinance. That is all we are asking of you.

There was some good things that came from the discussion though. There will no longer be a sign up sheet to speak to the council (I never signed that stupid thing anyway). And councilor Jamison suggested that they don’t split the PROs and CONs into two separate groups. He said just let people come up and speak when it is their turn in line.

I hope I was clear enough with the council and especially with Erpenbach. Limiting public discussion will NOT be tolerated in the future.

Council chair Erpenbach just doesn’t seem to get it. She continues to want to discuss changing public input at the working sessions. Another round on the topic is planned for 4 PM today.

2. Public Input Discussion

Here’s the deal, if you have a problem the 5 minute rule, go before the charter revision commission and ask them to change it, otherwise there is NOTHING to discuss. It is time to DROP it, and follow city ordinance.

Just reading the  Argus snowgates article and noticed SubPrime is blaming the snowgaters for his inability to order and use them right away.

“Huether said he would like to see them bought and used immediately, but the issue must wait until the April 2014 municipal election…”

Will he use the petition drive as a wedge issue? Sorry Mike, nice try, but here is the lowdown;

1) You allowed Council Chair Erpenbach to CENSOR us during the election meeting, even though YOU are the administrator of the meeting, and could have prevented it, then tried to wash your hands of it in an email to me a few days later.

2) You say you ENDORSE snowgates, but refused to sign our petition to allow people to vote on the issue.

3) The council denied our Spring 2013 election. If the election would have been allowed and snowgates passed, they would be in use by November 2013.

4) The council said that they didn’t BUDGET for a Spring 2013 election or for snowgates, so they could not go into affect Nov 2013. Yet you and the council appropriate and transfer funds at almost every council meeting through resolutions.

Keep pointing the finger Mike, in the mirror that is.