July 2016

Washington Pavilion’s vague 2015 financial graphic

wash pav one sheet

Click to Enlarge

The Pavilion got around to putting ‘something’ up on their website about 2015. It is short on details.

What amazes me, is that not only does the place receive millions in maintenance from the city’s CIP that is NOT included in their budget, but they have to depend on a 43% subsidy from the city and private donors. It still amazes me that after almost 15 years and a significant growth in population, the Pavilion can’t even break even.

Ironic Johnny Thune Bag, The Vulture

GettyImages-543428596

attribution; Getty Images

John is at it again;

What’s the best way to prevent more babies being born with horrible deformities from the Zika virus? Preventing the pregnancy in exposed women in the first place. That means allowing Planned Parenthood, which helps prevent approximately 579,000 unintended pregnancies every year, to keep doing that job. But it’s Planned Parenthood and it’s an election year, so Republicans are specifically banning Zika prevention funding from being spent at Planned Parenthood. 

Planned Parenthood is not a “special interest.” It’s a first-tier health care provider for millions of men and women, and in particular low-income women.

It always amazes me that a father of two daughters is so anti-women. Maybe John is suited to run as VP with Trump?

Sioux Falls city council is looking for a re-vote on the administration building

Looks like it is going to be Round II here shortly on the proposed admin building. This isn’t a deferral, this is an attempt to put building a NEW building to rest.

First reading on July 12th.  Second reading July 19th.

Councilors Neitzert and Erickson are sponsoring the repeal.

This would simply be a repeal of the currently scheduled October 1st proposal.  If nothing is done they can do the bonding on October 1st.

Ordinance title:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA (THE “CITY”), REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 36-16 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF ITS SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS AND OTHER ACTIONS RELATED THERETO. (DOC: repeal )

And the winner is? July 5, 2016

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eam11iP_82Q[/youtube]

The Council had a few moments of golden silence on July 5, 2016. Patrick Starr brought new thoughts to the appointment process when he followed Cameraman Bruce’s comments with the suggestion to change the voting process. It is a good start but more would need to be done.

Enjoy our selected SpecialCam of the evening’s festivities. Guess which member will be our next… We never know until….

Sioux Falls Chamber tries to ‘Shame’ the most ‘Honorable’ of city councilors

Like clockwork, the Chamber tries to kill the most prudent and aware city councilors;

Forward Sioux Falls Agreement Approved – Three Councilors Dissent

In recent years, the City has required signed agreements with those organizations it invests in to help develop our community. That includes, for example, the Sioux Falls Development Foundation, Downtown Sioux Falls and, for the first time, Forward Sioux Falls. We agree that good agreements make for good partners and this is an important way for the City to do business.
During Tuesday’s City Council meeting, the agreement between the City and Forward Sioux Falls was on the agenda for approval. The agreement includes the terms, conditions and responsibilities of the parties, the planned $400,000 per year the city will invest and the notation that funds must be approved each year by the Council. Forward Sioux Falls and City leadership supported the agreement.
After the City presentation and comments by FSF Co-chair Mark Shlanta, a motion was made to defer approval to September. That motion failed 3-5. More dialogue ensued and a motion was made to approve the agreement which prevailed on a 5-3 vote. Yes votes included Erickson, Kiley, Rolfing, Selberg and Erpenbach. No votes included Starr, Neitzert and Stehly.
A main concern expressed was the idea of a multi-year pledge. It was noted that the City does not regularly express funding support in this way for other programs. However, the structure of Forward Sioux Falls is as a five-year program. Private enterprise understands this and that is how they pledge their investments so it seems logical all partners would do the same. Further, FSF needs funding certainty for starting and developing programs with long-term time horizons. Finally, this is nothing new for the City. Prior FSF campaigns have also included multi-year pledges from the City as well as other investors. Some councilors seemed to treat this as a new idea when it has been this way for preceding campaigns.
We respect the fact that lawmakers need to vote their conscience and each of those voting no did express their general support for Forward Sioux Falls. I’m always reminded, however, that in legislative matters words do not count—only votes do.
We thank the five Councilors who voted to approve the agreement and we thank the City Administration for working with Forward Sioux Falls to continue a program with an unprecedented track record of economic development success. We look forward to working with the Council to convey the important work of Forward Sioux Falls and our progress over the next years. The next step for the City will be, of course, the 2017 city budget.
The sick irony of all this is that whether the Chamber wants to admit it or not, they need the full support of the council throughout the year, on many projects, some worthwhile, some not. And by shaming three of them publicly in this matter was not a good call, in fact it was wildly childish.
All the three were asking for was a year to year accounting (Erpenbach also asked for it, but voted for it anyway), something Forward Sioux Falls was not willing to give. So yes, their votes did count. They told them that arrogance, attitude and elitism would not be tolerated. I applaud the three councilors for standing up for our public treasury and asking the right questions about a program that has yet to prove itself.
And BTW, some words do count; The Sioux Falls Chamber look like egotistical fools.