February 2014

The community swim survey

FROM a South DaCola foot soldier;

I thought you might be interested to know I received a call on my home phone for a poll regarding the pool issue.  It took several minutes to answer all the questions and they were testing a lot of messages about the voting “no” on the outdoor pool.  They also asked about the mayors race.  At a lighthearted point in the conversation, the person taking the poll told me she was a Republican working for the Democrats.

First, they asked some basic questions such as:

• Do you plan to vote in the April election?

• Do you think the city is on the right track or wrong track?

• Do you have favorable opinions about Huether?

• Do you have favorable opinions about Jamison?

• Do you plan to vote for Jamison or Huether?

Next, they asked if the following statements would make you more likely, less likely, or have no impact on your decision to support an indoor pool at Spellerberg Park

• There is a lot of congestion at the intersection of 26th & Western

• The indoor pool will be a large facility and take up a lot of room at Spellerberg Park

• Sioux Falls needs an outdoor pool and if we do not approve it this time, it will not be built for several years

• The VA is next to Spellerberg Park and parking at the facility is congested

• Congestion near Spellerberg Park would decrease with an indoor facility

• Congestion near Spellerberg Park would increase with an outdoor pool

• Sioux Falls already has several outdoor pools but does not have an public indoor facility

• The money for an outdoor pool has already been allocated in the budget

• An indoor facility will add $13M to the city’s debt

• Sioux Falls should provide recreation activities for the public’s use

I was not able to write down the questions as they were being asked so this is my best recollection of the questions. I will keep thinking about it and let you know if I come up with any more.

One is back in, One is advertising fireplaces (but not a city council race)

buhler-buhler

I guess there have been ‘fireplace commercials’ that feature Christine Erickson and her family in their new home, which means it might have been shot and produced after she announced her candidacy for city council. I wonder if this violates any FCC or election disclosure laws?  Even if it is “legally compliant” that doesn’t make it right to air it, especially less than 60 days out to the election (after April 10, fine).  She should know better, the business should know better, and the media looks complicit for airing it.  Why can’t people just do the right thing any more without forcing someone else to call them out? It’s like the Channel 16 and the mayor blatantly using it for campaign purposes.

I was also alerted that last night on Facebook that Angie Buhl IS running for re-election.  She even used the post yesterday to ask for campaign donations. I guess District 15 hasn’t had enough of Pro-choice, non-catholics 🙂

Is the city really saving money on the EC utility bill?

So KELO kicked this off and said the city is actually saving money by using Heartland Consumer Power District, maybe they are?

$500,000 dollars seems like a lot of money and it is, but the City says it’s actually saving money.

The City worked out a five-year deal with Heartland Consumer Power District to keep the lights on at a lower cost. As part of its Energy One Incentive Plan, the City won’t have to pay the electrical demand charge which covers the cost of delivering power to the facility. That can sometimes be just as expensive as the gas and electric bills.

Did you know that the city runs it’s own municipal power? Did you also know that we pay these people regardless of who the clients are? So wouldn’t it make sense to use OUR OWN municipal power? Wouldn’t that save us $$$? Or is this political? Why not use the largest power supplier in the city, Xcel Energy?

Well according to this campaign finance report (DOC: CFR_100511 ) we may have the answer to that question.

heartland

So why did Heartland give money to the BIN campaign, not only BEFORE they started construction OR awarding the bids, but BEFORE we even voted on the facility. Funny how these things work? Huh?

Items from the SF City Council consent agenda

I think these items need to be pulled in Tuesday’s meeting and discussed. (Item #1) Not saying they are controversial, but I am curious about a NORTH gift shop at the Pavilion (they already have a South one) and why it is costing taxpayers half-million to renovate one floor of City Hall. Of course this is the same building that had to spend around $60K for a ‘backup’ air-conditioner for the IT room.

ca111