After reading this, it seems the only thing our state county commissioners want to do is raise our taxes instead of finding ways to cut wasteful spending.
FULL DOC:Â 2018-Approved-Resolutions
Informational Meeting • 4 PM
Presentations on;
October Financial Report & update to the garbage hauler ordinance;
Chapter 57 Ordinances Summary of Changes
• The purpose of this update to Chapter 57 was a general cleanup of the ordinance language
• Added definition of Industrial Waste and Municipal Waste to accurately reflect the EPA’s definition of recycling and municipal solid waste
• 57.047 – Allows the landfill to charge up to $3 per passenger car, pickup truck, or two-wheel trailer for use by anyone in the landfill’s service area to use the leaf drop-off sites
• 57.051 added in ability to use/sell byproducts deposited at the landfill (landfill gas, scrap metal recycling) and the ability to donate bicycles deposited at the landfill to nonprofit organizations as provided by SDCL 43-41-11
• 57.067 changed to require hauler vehicles to permanently display a commercial garbage hauler’s name in easily legible letters at least six inches high on both sides of the vehicle. The name displayed must be the same as the name on the hauler’s license, but may also include a logo or other language
Land Use Committee Meeting • 4:30ish, after informational
Presentation; Engineering Design Standards by Public Works staff.
Regular City Council Meeting • 7 PM
Item #1, Approval of Contracts;
Lots of money going towards affordable housing, ironically.
Item #26, City Electric Rate increases
Item #27, Drainage Fee increases
Item #28, Sewer Fee increases
I find it interesting in these 3 ordinances how in the agenda language they don’t say it is a fee ‘increase’ only that it ‘pertains’ to the ordinances. A little trick in government language to not alarm the citizens.
Item #29, Resolution, Union contract with municipal employees. It’s a two year contract in which they will get a 2.5% COLA in 2019 and a 3% in 2020.
UPDATE: Just when you thought this couldn’t get any better, KSFY decided to put Stehly’s comments back in the story with this disclaimer;
Mayor Paul TenHaken has called into question Stehly’s comment about sewer bills rising to $300 a month. He calls it an absurd assertion. KSFY News initially removed the comment after the story aired over concerns that it was confusing, but we have since put the comment back in. Stehly says she stands by her comment.
Prairie Values TV Journalism at it’s best. Maybe KSFY should just stick to doing stories about charity dog races, halloween decorations and food trucks and let the newspaper and blogs cover the ‘real’ news.
It is one thing to edit a story based on having a name misspelled, or numbers and places that or incorrect. That is responsible journalism. But to edit an ‘Opinion’ of an elected official after another elected official in same government entity sends out an email, well, is horrible journalism. I often chuckle at Trump when he says ‘Fake News’ but in this case, one has to wonder.
The other night on KSFY they did a story on the wastewater treatment plant, Councilor Stehly said she has a ‘concern’ that water bills could exceed $300 dollars a month. While I kind of cringed when she said that, it is what it is, an OPINION. (she really isn’t that far off the mark, while our bills will increase $2 a month, for a small business owner they could easily see bills increasing to $300. In fact, over the past decade our water/sewer bills have increased 93%).
Well this ‘Opinion’ did not sit well with Selfie Paul, he sent out this email to city staff and the media (I was conveniently NOT included);
Councilor Stehly:
Thank you for the opportunity this week to once again provide you with information on the Water Reclamation System. Upcoming investments in the collection and treatment systems is a foundational investment crucial to both current and future residents who expect a reliable wastewater collection and treatment system.
The administration has invested hundreds of hours on this project due to the importance of this infrastructure for our city as well as the large price tag attached to it. We have also spent time briefing the City Council, media and public on the importance of this project.
Unfortunately, this week you broke a sacred trust elected leaders have with their constituents. As elected officials we have an obligation to present factual information to the public. That is what I have done in my role as mayor and that is what I expect of city employees. Yesterday, on KSFY and on Tuesday at City Council Informational you stated wastewater customers will experience a $300 per month rate increase as a result of this project. Spreading such misinformation when factual projections have been presented to you is a disservice to your constituents and I’m disappointed you knowingly spread this false information.
Talk about misinformation! It was simply an opinion of ONE city councilor. In the original KSFY story (the edited version is here) Stehly’s ‘Opinion’ was in there, after this email was sent it was edited out of the video (almost) and the text.
Ironically though they didn’t edit the close captioning, it still remains there;
I’m NOT blaming the reporter for this, I’m sure the higher ups made this decision to edit the story, which makes it even more egregious. There’s a fine line between FACTS and OPINIONS, maybe someone should explain this to the producers of KSFY or more importantly the Mayor.
Before I give you my answer to that question, first, I want to say I don’t think it is fiscally feasible. The bond payments combined with current debt service will easily exceed $25 million a year. A question councilor Stehly has been asking but not getting an answer on.
Don’t you think it is kind of bizarre we planned out $260 million in water reclamation upgrades over 7 years, a rate increase model and a 1st reading on Tuesday, yet NO ONE has an estimate of what those bond payments will be.
Yeah . . . right . . .
UPDATE II: Here are the projections;
UPDATE III: Here is the full report and answers to Stehly’s questions from Tuesday’s informational:Â Council Stehly Response – 11-16-18
Reminds of the SFSD and how they ran from the $300 million dollar bond repayment number.
So what is the justification of paying the bonds down through user fees besides the enterprise fund model that former mayor Bucktooth and Bowlcut concocted with Turdbak? They feel that bonds for infrastructure should be paid for through user fees. (I partially agree, but we will get to that in a moment).
Let’s be clear, like the Pavilion, the Denty has never made one dollar’s worth of payments towards the bonds and debt service which is around $9 million a year for the facility. That payment comes directly out of a fund we pay into when we purchase anything in Sioux Falls, groceries, clothing, etc. The 2nd penny is supposed to be for things like infrastructure (sewer plants) and roads, but we use it now to pay down the bonds on entertainment facilities. Does the Denty make money? Well kind of. They have tons of sponsorships* which offset the operational costs and any money left over above and beyond doesn’t even go back to the city. It goes into a revolving fund that the city maintains financially but that SMG uses to promote the EC. While it doesn’t cost us anything to operate the facility, we get ZERO from it to pay down the bonds. It’s like paying a mortgage on a house you can’t live in and the renters keep their rent payment, but do invite you over for an occasional BBQ – BYOB of course.
Something that was suggested long ago was a ticket fee attached to each ticket that would go directly to the bond payment. It was nixed by SMG because they said promoters don’t like it. But if it is written into city ordinance promoters and artists would have to obey. The 7th penny, which is the entertainment tax was used to pay down the Pavilion bonds, it was supposed to sunshine after that but never did and now is used for the maintenance of the Pavilion and EC and CC.
It is hypocritical to say we need to raise sewer rates to pay these bonds since the EC, the Pavilion, The Midco Aquatic Center and many other play palaces in SF have never paid down their bonds through user fees.
When I have suggested this, many have said, “Then where will the debt service come from for the entertainment facilities?” My response is the same as Public Works Director Cotter’s, FROM USER FEES!
It’s time we change city ordinance so that the play palaces can start paying their own way. Clean water is essential to the health and well being of a growing city, seeing Garth Brooks 20 times in a row isn’t. We need to look at our fiscal responsibilities more closely.
*UPDATE: I wonder how the sponsorship negotiations are going with most of the sponsors at the Denty? Most of those agreements expire in 2019 (except the main naming rights). Makes you wonder if SMG’s latest termination has anything to do with this?
What do we always hear from the SFPC? We have to follow rules, and if the project matches the zoning, we HAVE TO approve it.
I have often argued they do NOT have to. Last Wednesday night they denied a casino on Minnesota Ave. 3-2 vote that was zoned properly for the usage. (Watch Meeting REPLAY, Item#6)
Don’t get me wrong, I agreed with their decision and was surprised it didn’t fail 5-0. Though the zoning fit, the casino was next to a bank and a children’s dance studio, not a good place for alcohol and gambling in my humble opinion.
But what I find hypocritical about the SFPC is they often tell neighbors they HAVE to approve projects because it meets standards. The casino met the zoning standards, but as the neighbors pointed out, bad location.
Let’s face it, when they approve applicants and use the excuse they HAVE to approve something, all they are really saying is, “The developer has more money and influence than God and we really don’t care how it affects you.”
It’s easy to deny a middle class immigrant applicant (which they do quite often) but when Sanford or another large developer steps up to the podium all of sudden the neighbors be damned.
The SFPC did the right thing on Wednesday night by denying this applicant, they need to do it more often, no matter what they say, they DO have the right to deny ANY applicant, even the ones with fat wallets.
l3wis