Sioux Falls City Council Agenda, August 2-3, 2022

PLANNING COMMISSION ENTIRE AGENDA ON CONSENT FOR 2ND MONTH IN A ROW

Planning Meeting • Wednesday August 3 • 6 PM

As if it were not bad enough that the members barely have a quorum each month, have multiple conflicts of interest and the agenda reads like Chinese algebra, for the 2nd month in a row they put everything on the consent agenda. Of course, the public can pull an item for discussion, but rarely do. I also found it interesting that the entire agenda is in consent considering Item 2 (I) has NO recommendation from staff.

THE SECRETLY SELECTED HOMELESS TASK FORCE WILL HAVE FIRST MEETING

Homeless Task Force • Wednesday August 3 • 1 PM

While the task force has stated the meetings will be recorded, I am not sure if they will live stream. I still have not heard why the members were secretly selected behind closed doors and there wasn’t an open application process. Not sure this group of ‘specials’ is cut out for the job;

Rich Merkouris – City Council, Pastor

Marshall Selberg – City Council, Real Estate

Curt Soehl – City Council, Insurance Salesman

Michelle Erpenbach – Sioux Falls Thrive

Kari Benz – Director of Human Services · Lincoln/Minnehaha County

Mike Curtis – Crop production Services – Area Sales Manager (?)

Anny Libengood – Anny Libengood – South Dakota Multi-Housing Association

Terry Liggins – non-profit called The Hurdle Life Coach Foundation

From 2015 – “Terry Daron Liggins, age 29, of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, was sentenced to 15 months in prison on the conspiracy charge, and 24 months on the ID theft charge, to be served consecutively.  Upon release from prison he will be on supervised release for 3 years.  Liggins was also ordered to make restitution to the IRS in the amount of $339,535, and to two ID theft victims in the amount of $866.83.”

Andy Patterson – President/CEO · Sioux Falls Area Community Foundation

Jesse Schmidt – Better Business Bureau

Dustin Haber – Bender Commercial Realty

Rebecca Wimmer – Coordinator of Community Partnerships · Sioux Falls School District

Kadyn Wittman – Development Director YMCA

Budget Hearing • Tuesday August 2 • 3 PM

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FULL OF CONSULTING FEES AND CRAZY NEITZERT AMENDMENTS

Regular Council Meeting • Tuesday August 2 • 6 PM

Item #6, Approval of Contracts

Sub-Item #6, Aquatic and Ice Rink Development – Vision Plan for Kuehn, Frank Olson, McKennan, Terrace, and Laurel Oak Pools; Agreement for professional services, PROS Consulting, $99K. As I have mentioned at council meetings, we have plenty of dusty studies on the shelf of what pools need to be fixed. I sometimes wonder if Parks Director Don Swanson is getting a kickback from the consulting firms?

Sub-Item #10, Mass Notification Software Contract Renewal. Notification tool is utilized by multiple City depts. to notify residents of Sioux Falls in the event of emergency, and other mass public notifications, Everbridge, $47,745.48 per year for 3 years. I find this one intriguing considering I thought the cell phone companies help pay for this thru other fees and taxes. Can someone clarify?

Sub-Item #15, Legal Services Engagement; Amendment to professional services agreement, Woods Fuller Schultz & Smith P.C., $20K. And what is this for?

Sub-Item #29, Rail Yard Redevelopment – Quiet Zone Preliminary Design; Agreement for professional services, Alfred Benesch & Company, $73K. While a design certainly has to be done, why on earth would the taxpayers of Sioux Falls being paying for a preliminary design before the railroads have agreed to it? What about the state? The Feds? Why doesn’t the developer that wants this pay for it? How about the Department of Transportation, or better yet the Railroad? And what pocket is this coming from? I think we need to get everyone on board before we start designing this and sneaking it in the consent agenda.

Item #42, 2nd Reading: Deferred from the meeting of Tuesday, July 19, 2022; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SD, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY BY AMENDING CHAPTER 30: ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, MOTIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS REQUIRING COUNCIL APPROVAL BY REQUIRING AN ANNOTATED AGENDA. (This item was referred to the Operations Committee at the Council Meeting of April 13, 2022 and reported to the Council at the Meeting of July 19, 2022). This is a long time coming, and I think the council needs to make more bold steps towards transparency. Of course, I am NOT going to hold my breath. It took Janet Brekke 4 years to get this on the agenda, and when she finally got it there, the council deferred it. They have NO interest in expanding transparency.

Item #43, 2nd Reading: AN ORDINANCE REVISING § 124.012 OF CITY CODE THAT PROVIDES FOR SIOUX AREA METRO TRANSIT FARES. This is also long past due, and with little fanfare, the kids ride for free!

Item #51, 2nd Reading: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA, DIRECTING SUBMISSION OF AN INITIATED MEASURE TO PROHIBIT THE CONSTRUCTION OR PERMITTING OF NEW SLAUGHTERHOUSES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS TO A VOTE OF THE ELECTORS OF THE CITY AT THE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2022. I still think this ballot question is unconstitutional, and if I was a city councilor, I would vote to NOT put it on the ballot.

COUNCILOR NEITZERT TRIES TO CLAIM NON-PROFITS ARE NON-PARTISAN, LMFAO!

Item #65, A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2022 CITY COUNCIL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. Part of the changes have to do with the travel policies of the council. Of course, councilor Neitzert who was impeached for going to a partisan event with the Mayor and former Deputy Chief of Staff, TJ Nelson, now wants to define that non-profits are non-partisan. His amendment is as follows;

For purposes of this policy, any non-profit organization under Section 501(c) of the United States Internal Revenue Code is not considered a partisan organization.

Not only is that incredibly false its ludicrous he would even propose something so ridiculous. And if a majority of the council approves his amendment, we will make sure the IRS is aware that the Sioux Falls City Council thinks non-profits are non-partisan, unicorns exist and the tooth fairy is my neighbor.



14 comments ↓

#1 Very Stable Genius on 07.31.22 at 1:29 pm

But, if what Greg and the Mayor did was not unethical, then why the need for this amendment?

#2 "Woodstock" on 07.31.22 at 1:30 pm

“Say, I’m going to start a non-profit to defeat Noem”…. “But don’t worry, it won’t be partisan”….

#3 l3wis on 07.31.22 at 1:54 pm

“But, if what Greg and the Mayor did was not unethical, then why the need for this amendment?”

EXACTLY!

I think someone has a guilty conscience or has been drinking too much hand sanitizer.

#4 VSG on 07.31.22 at 3:36 pm

Or, they found the “file cabinet”.

#PassMeOneOfThoseMiniFridgeCokes

#5 Mike Lee Zitterich on 07.31.22 at 8:00 pm

Keep the I.R.S out of Sioux Falls, “WE” do not need them taking anymore money from the Sioux Falls faithful. I do not see anything wrong with the amendment, it is only codifying within our ordinance that “NON-PROFITS” are to be defined as “Non-Partisan” in nature. It matters not what the damn I.R.S says or believes, ‘we’ are a sovereign group of people, backed by the U.S Constitution, which allows us to have our own “Form of Government” of which we can enact our own public laws governing our sovereign territory – “The City”.

Article 4: SECTION. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them
against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

South Dakotans have their own form of Government, and it gave the PEOPLE of the State the lawful ability to establish their own Township, City, etc adopting its own laws.

The IRS has NO jurisdiction within the CITY itself, keep them ******ckers out of this debate…

#6 l3wis on 08.01.22 at 12:43 pm

Mike, maybe you should send that comment to Greg since he is the one injecting the IRS into the operations manual. It also seems that Greg thinks he WAS guilty of an ethical violation and is trying to fix it.

#7 Mike Lee Zitterich on 08.01.22 at 6:39 pm

I do not think Greg is admitting to any thing but the “Ordinances” are not clearly written, and is attempting to make them more clear on what is legal and what is illegal, and so forth. I do not believe Greg did anything wrong in that ordeal.

#8 VSG on 08.01.22 at 9:53 pm

Mike, have you heard of the 16th Amendment?

#9 Mike Lee Zitterich on 08.02.22 at 10:41 am

What about the 16th Amendment, it changed nothing other than allowed “Congress” to go around the State allowing the Federal Govt to contract directly to the Citizens upon the citizens giving consent. IT changed nothing…No Foreign State, Territory, nor the Federal Govt can force any such “Citizen” to pay a direct tax on their property, person, nor their labor, and the Supreme Court has many times upheld this protected right. This is why South Dakota has some of the most strongest “trust” laws in the nation, as they are designed to help South Dakota Citizens ‘avoid’ the Federal Income Tax. IF the Federal Govt wants to ‘tax’ my gross income, they need my consent, let alone my “States” permission, and neither of us have given it. They may only ‘tax’ any such profits made from my labor, or my capital, of which, I can choose to ‘invest’ up to 100% into my Trusts inside South Dakota.

#10 TDakota on 08.02.22 at 11:13 am

T.Liggz’s foundation is delinquent with the SD Secretary of State. He also has a for-profit LLC by the same name. Hmmm? Wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him, as would anyone who knows him from USD.

#11 VSG on 08.02.22 at 8:49 pm

Mike,

South Dakota has its trust laws because of a loophole in the federal tax code, which needs to be changed. President Obama even made mention of this possible change in one of his State of the Union Addresses roughly 10 years ago, but sadly, it has yet to have been changed.

Also, prior to the 16th Amendment, we had a federal income tax during the Civil War. Just curious, was Honest Abe unconstitutional? And to think he was a Republican taxing people’s incomes….

( and Woodstock adds: “Ya, but I thought Obama was into ‘Change'”….. (“And, there’s definitely some people making some serious change in South Dakota thanks to our trust laws”… ))

#12 Mike Lee Zitterich on 08.03.22 at 6:07 pm

To VSG,

Prior to 1913 – the major “income tax’ acts you speak of were actually done in a constitutional manner of the “congress” proper appropriation national “expenses” of such emergencies, wars, disasters, conflicts applying them equally across ALL STATES, whereas the State Legislature’s then of course discussed the “national tax bill” within their respective State, thus creating a “tax” to applied directly to the “American Citizens” of that State. Therefore, the State’s collected the tax from their own citizens, deposited it into the state treasuries, then following the federal law governing the ‘revenue act’ – remitted the payment directly to the Federal Treasury itself. The difference was the fact, the “STATE” recieved the ‘bill’, not the citizens themselves individually. Also remember, this was why LINCOLN promoted and helped create the “Internal Revenue Office” placing regional tax offices across Federal Terrtory, in order to “Audit, Properly Assess, and Collect” the tax from the States themselves. Since 1913 and with the adoption of the 16th Amendment, the ‘act’ allows Congress to completely sidestep the “State Legislature’s in that process, but then again, there is NO Constitutional basis to ‘force’ any American to forcefully pay a federal income tax, let alone the Federal Govt cannot assess/apply the tax directly to an Americans person, property, land, nor capital, that violate Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 itself.

South Dakota Trust Laws are 100% legal, as they allow South Dakotans to “invest” up 100% of their Gross Income earned from labor or capital to avoid the Federal Income Tax. There is NO Loophole in the law, as the LAW itself must complaint with the U.S Constitution itself.

Upon ‘reading’ the Federal Tax Code, itself, you will see that you do NOT owe any such ‘tax’ on your gross income, which of course represents your LABOR or your Capital, or both. That is the entire basis if “Direct Apportionment” which only the State’s can apply directly, NOT the Federal Govt, to whom can only “Indirectly” tax you and/or your properyt, let alone your activity.

This is why the Federal Income Tax is only applied to PROFITS or GAINS from some form of commercial activity. This is why you are allowed to ‘deduct down’ all your commercial expenses, let alone all allowed tax credits and allowances.

#13 VSG on 08.03.22 at 6:58 pm

Mike,

As far as your first paragraph, I would love to see you use that last contention in the presence of an IRS officer. Plus, the Constitution gives Congress the right to tax, which is like forcing you to pay a federal tax. So, Congress does have the right to tax income. Well, thanks to the 16th Amendment they do.

2nd paragraph: No, it’s a loophole. A loophole can be legal, but it’s still a loophole. Just because somethings (“Someday?”) are legal in Nevada doesn’t mean she still ain’t the same kind of woman.

3rd paragraph: The Feds could take your gross, but don’t – via statute – for political reasons to encourage health insurance and 401k participation as examples.

4th paragraph: Your deductions are what the Feds allow you to have and not from what they are hindered from having or taxing.

#14 Mike Lee Zitterich on 08.04.22 at 1:39 pm

VSG,

Dunny, how you mix the two eras as if they are under the same laws which they are not. Prior to 191e the federal govt could force any citizen to pay a income tax with out first working a tax bill thru the legislature, this was a fact…you imply that article 1 gave Co guess a direct authority to tax someone’s property, again there is a reason for article 1, Section 9, clause 4 which you fail to grasp. Which was tge purpose of Amendment 16, allowing the FEDS to by pass the legiatures, allowing tge FEDS to create an indirect income tax applied under article 1’s indirect tax system of excise, duties, imposes.

In fact, u det subtitle A which is the current income tax chapter, it cites the 1918 Tarrif Act as the source, in relation to the character of such tax, that tge tax us to ve a transactional tax assessed ro any America. Transacting their labor or capital outside of the states jurisdiction, which have of course is anyone who signs a contract- those W4 or W9 which leads to any such American to voluntary assess themselves on the 1040 information form.

South Dakotas trust laws are 100% legal and blo ks the FEDS from taxing out property. Conforms with article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 allowing you to block the IRS from taxing your property directly. There is no loop hole ad it applies to all states, bit just S.D. We simply enforce it better than most states.

The FEDS cannot take your gross, the courts have ruled on tgis many times if you actually know how to read case law. Gross Income represents your labor or your capital, and the courts rules based in that fact. You may want to do more study. Again. It goes back to Subtutle A ad I mentioned. The current income tax is written In context of the constitution and the costs. Uses tge 1918 Tarrif Act to present the proper assessment of the tax, applied to only the profits from the activity itself, net income.

Therefore Gross Income representing your labor minus commercial expenses, tax credits. Losses depreciation. Any other allowances equals net profit, less any investment transfers to your trusts aka Healthcare, Retirement, Commercial Ventures, Education, Real Property, Lans.

Even with amendment 16, article 1, section 9, clause 4 is upheld.

The constitution clearly gets in the of Democrat tax policies.