April 2016

Why wasn’t the 300 building considered an option? Because existing buildings don’t make contractors money

Lets’s face it, this isn’t about space needs, this is about rewarding contractors, architects and consultants with new jobs to do. Buying existing property that just needs some new carpet doesn’t require the millions in consulting fees;

While it wouldn’t be move-in ready for the city, Merrow’s Realtor Dennis Breske said a full restoration “down to the bones” could be completed for an estimated $4 to $5 million.

“Even if it’s $70 per square foot for all 76,000 square feet, that’s $5.3 million,” said Breske, who used to be part owner of the 300 Building. “That’s $11,320,000 (for purchase and remodel), which is still a savings … of almost $14 million.”

Of course the city has all kinds of excuses;

Officials at City Hall, though, say the 300 Building was considered before deciding to build new. Sue Quanbeck Etten, Central Services Director for the city who’s led the administrative office building project for Mayor Huether, said the floor plan, a limited amount of parking and the sheer number of tenants leasing space in the building kept the 300 Building from being seriously considered when other space solutions were being vetted in 2013 and 2014.

“It wasn’t even something we considered because that building didn’t meet any of the criteria that we needed,” she said, although admitting the idea of purchasing the building out right wasn’t entertained – only leasing space.

So which is it? You considered it or not?

In all the discussions concerning the proposed office building we hear and read, there is a concern for parking. As of right now there is a lightly used parking ramp and Romantix ground parking lots on the west side of North Dakota. The parking lots to the north and south of Romantix are currently used by workers in the 300 Building. When city staff moves into the 300 Building, these employees will be putting their cars into the same parking spots being vacated by the leaving office workers. The lot south of Romantix would finally be used consistently by city staff.
The KSFY space has possibilities for the engineers and their sensitive equipment requirements. Most of the 300 Building tower could be used in it’s current configuration. Little remodeling would be required to make the building very useable. The south wing could be remodeled, removed or expanded easily for future growth into the current city parking lot.
So there should be no further discussion of parking needs in this building purchase a possibility.

Sioux Falls Council Agenda (4/19/2016) – $189K home, affordable?

As an outgoing city councilor said to me the other day, ‘there is going to be some busy and full agendas up until the new councilors get sworn in.’

And when you read them, you understand why, a lot of agenda items the new council may not approve of.

Let’s start with Item#1, approval of contracts;

Affordable Housing Solutions, $547,000.

Wow, they must be building at least 6 single family homes with this. Nope. Three, at a cost of $189,000.00 a piece. In modest central neighborhoods on existing lots. Think about that for a moment. While our affordable housing waiting list hits about 4 years with thousands of folks looking for housing, we are blowing over a half million on THREE HOUSES!

Inefficiency at it’s highest. And you should see what they sell them for to prospective buyers (about half that price). The contractors are the winners in the end, smiling all the way to the bank.

During the informational meeting, you will see a presentation about water rate increases, and you will see the city is quick to move forward on raising these rates again before the new councilors get sworn in.

Items#53-63

Affordable housing grants, pensions, housing rights, WATER RATE INCREASES  with sewer and electrical.

Items#80, Elmwood Golf Course Hotel.

Were the City Council candidates financial documents filed correctly?

I guess that would be a matter of law, and which laws you decide to follow. We noticed last week that after the reports were not filed by Friday at 5 PM that on Monday that the clerk’s office was modifying (auditing) the original financial documents.

Nothing wrong with auditing and amending the original, but they should never be audited on the original document, they should be posted right after being received in original format (Wed at 5 PM), and amendments can be made and posted later.

The city clerk’s office has a different opinion on the matter.

I wasn’t going to post these emails, but since Pitty Patt Powwers decided to only show one side of the emails, I would show both.

From Bruce;

 

Tom Greco & Lorie Hogstad
Clerks of the City of Sioux Falls, SD
Inconsistencies have come to my attention as I look at the 2016 filed financial disclosure forms. Please supply me with copies of all submitted financial and organizational forms with certificate of actual date of submission and acceptance of each document for all candidates and PACs. Our understanding each of the 2016 candidates filed the required forms by the deadlines required. Based on your comments to me, there are no candidate filing issues, so this request is directed to the actions of your office.
Your verbal statements made to me during my Monday April 11, 2016 visit to your Carnegie office confirms your standing policy of intentionally mis-dating (both back dating and post dating) these forms.
These are legal documents and must never be tampered with. The documents must be treated as whole when they are submitted and have no other markings attached but for a standard date received stamp or mark.
As stated during my visit to your office, these documents are legal documents filed in trust to your office. These forms are submitted to your office similar to forms filed with the Clerks of the US Federal and State Courts in South Dakota. The originals submitted to these Clerks are never withdrawn and only amended when corrections are be submitted. This is the law.
The delay in the document posting was inexcusible but to break your oath to the people of Sioux Falls by falsifing the dates must be investigated. It raises reasonable doubt about the authenticity of all documents either received or issued by your office.
Last year the City of Sioux Falls sold property at 801 North Phillips Ave. Sale document errors were reported to the City Council and City Attorney by me, stating these documents were privately modified after City Council adoption. The final documents were modified after passage without City Council approval. The title to the real estate in question has been clouded by having document dates not matching the actual dates of the events. The Notary Public stamp was even expired when using the original document dates voted on. Clearly now it appears your office is keeping documents not reflecting events. Are these illegal documents and in reality nullify the sale?
Now we have the use of correction fluids or writing over document sections without the preservation of originals. This shows a strong disregard for your oaths to do no harm.
We will continue our efforts. You have done a diservice to the citizens of Sioux Falls and especially the great candidates who ran for office this year.
As stated in the below attached request, it appears the City Clerk office of the City of Sioux Falls may violated South Dakota law and practice.
We also require written answers to the following:
  1. Why the originally filed early or on-time documents not timely posted to the City Clerk’s website as usual?
  2. Why filing dates were not correctly presented?
  3. Why were document dates back dated or post dated?
  4. Why you allowed original documents to be altered?
  5. Why you did not follow state law concerning the proper 72 hour submission of amended data procedures?
I expect to receive these documents with your answers by return email or USPS mail.
Bruce Danielson
Citizens for Integrity
PO Box 1954
Sioux Falls, SD 57101
City Clerk Tom Greco’s 1 AM response;

Mr. Danielson,

Tending to my sick child has kept me up this late, so I’ll make my response very direct so I can get back to him.

Your claims below are baseless and deceitful. Your characterization of the conversation you, myself, Lorie, and two other employees witnessed is entirely wrong.

There was no delay in posting disclosures to the web. In fact, we have no obligation to post to the internet but do so as a convenience to citizens, which we obviously support.

No documents have been “tampered with” by this office. I am not even sure what you mean by your assertion, but the documents posted to the web and in our office are accurate.

I am not sure what xxx N Phillips Ave has to do with your request.

I don’t need a lecture from you about oaths. I’ve taken an oath to this country and its laws; I’ve upheld that oath through two war campaigns and over 20 years of service to our country.

You probably need sleep more than I do. Get it. When you wake up get your facts straight (a spell checker will also help.)

Thomas Greco
SIOUX FALLS CITY CLERK