UPDATE II: The frosting could not be put on any thicker;
For Cherapa Place, that’s especially key. Developer Jeff Scherschligt said he’s finalizing a retail deal and timing of the roadwork is “very critical” to tenants.
“We could not have that situation asking them to build out a retail space, and a year or two later the construction project closes down Sixth Street,” he said. “It would be a nightmare. We understand how difficult this was for the council. And yet why the city of Sioux Falls is successful is because city councilors can see through some of that haze and do the right thing for the community and the commitments the city has made. I really do want to thank those councilors, all of them.”
Yes, let’s thank the council for doing the ‘right thing’. They actually made the decision based on false and misleading information and when having the opportunity to fix it they roll over to the developers. Not sure they showed a lot of courage.
And what do we have here tacked onto the price tag of the project but a bunch of diagonal street parking;
The ‘extras’ in this project is what is going to make it expensive and since it is being ramrodded so fast so some condo users are not inconvenienced by having to drive an extra 2 blocks around the construction the change orders ought to be interesting.
What the council doesn’t realize is how tarnished their reputation has become after approving this project. I don’t talk to one single person (even those who think our city government runs great) that don’t think the council really missed an opportunity to flex their muscle butt instead scurried like rats.
UPDATE: NO city councilor brought forth a reconsideration vote during the meeting tonight. I know, shocker. Guess who had a change of heart;
But Cole did not make the motion to reconsider. She said in an interview following Monday’s meeting that she has since met with a developer and others affected by the project.
“Development in that area depends on that bridge being completed,” she said. “While the timing is frustrating, the development needs to move forward.”
There was also a practical reality.
“The votes weren’t there,” she said.
As I have said, it would probably be cheaper and better to wait a year, but the developer always wins at City Hall and Carnegie because they own it.
The meetings are on Monday this week due to it being municipal day on Tuesday in Pierre. I guess the council needs to kiss the ring.
• Compensation & Benefits Study by Bill O’Toole, Director of Human Resources; and, Mike Verdoorn, Principal Consultant from Gallagher (there were NO attached documents. It will be interesting if the study includes director and management pay, something that has been excluded for a long time. You don’t need a study to figure out what to pay the underlings. You offer better benefits and union employment the private sector does not, and you bump it up a notch. Not rocket science.)
What you won’t see is the reconsideration on the 6th street Bunker Bridge because that would be under the last item ‘New Business’. As of yesterday I was told that Councilor Dr. Sarah Cole still intends to bring a reconsideration motion. If she does and it is seconded by ANY city councilor, the discussion should be intriguing.
I still think they don’t have the votes to overturn the bridge quote, but you never know.
“The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.” – Thomas Jefferson
Would be great to get pics of the Mayor (most likely looking discusted that someone would challenge his wishes) if that gets a second.
If the developer is so dependent on the bridge, why is it not part of their project? Is she saying the taxpayers need to support the private project, how will they benefit from the support?
With $21 million, we could build over 100 affordable middle class/working class homes in our fine city.
Do like the Huether election for the Denty. Would you like the Denty at the convention center or downtown wasn’t a vote for location. It was a misrepresented commitment to build albeit at the convention center.
Do you want the bridge on 6th street or over the toxic river can be presumed approval to spend 21 million.
From the SiouxFallsLive.com link:
“But Cole did not make the motion to reconsider. She said in an interview following Monday’s meeting that she has since met with a developer and others affected by the project.”
In essence, during these meetings with the developer and others, Councilor Cole was politely, but directly reminded ‘who’ had contributed toward funding the PACs which dumped money into her campaign.
“You saw Stehly and Brekke, right?. You, um, you don’t want to be Stehly and Brekke, do you?”
#anoffershecouldntrefuse
VSG,
To be fair, the City still needs to build the bridge (for ~$11 million), so only ~$10 million available to build the housing units you reference.
Although a number which you might find unpalatable because of political undertones, would you settle for ~45 … homes, that is?
But really, when you think about it – a mere $10 million added to the price tag for an $11 million bridge is such a small price in order to provide the vanity stop-offs and reflecting positions which are to constructed along the sidewalks on this new bridge. You know, in order that the citizens of Sioux Falls can pay homage and tribute to those who have made of this possible?
S10 million a very inexpensive price indeed for this sidewalk pantheon of fame – The Walkway of VUOPM (“Vision” Using Other People’s Money).
Scott,
You do allude to some interesting points of reference in your part 2 of 2 involving the concerns to the bridge. But where I disagree, is did or did not the City Council participate in discussions related to the bridge, the development of the area ?
Lets take take a step back for a minute, think about the past discussions, keep in mind, the first level of talks related to the bridge, and the area, began in 2015, it was to be the next stage of development along the Green Way.
Evidence alone resides on the fact, the bridge was first proposed to be $5 million in 2015, then $10 million in 2018, and finally upon approval of it was to be $11.3 million in 2022 (2023 budget).
However, it was not the only part to public discussion, along side the bridge discussion, was the development of the East Bank – predominantly the addition of redeveloping East 7th Street, 8th Street, and 9th Street, let alone the improvements to 6th Street from Phillips to Weber Avenues, along with the utilities, water, sewer, and finally, the city’s roll in improving the Green Way Pathway itself.
Part of all these discussions involved working with the landowners, the property holders, of whom hired their developer to build out the Steel District and Cherapa District.
Did, or did not the Council partake in all these discussions? And what roll did they play, let alone what was their commentary on ALL these developments?
Facts were laid out as part of Resolutions, let alone the Ordinances to raise the funding sources for public monies to be set aside as part of all these developments.
Lets remember, the 6th Street Project is worth $23 million, the Bridge was to be $11.3 Million, the Water, Sewer, and Utility Improvements another $2-3 million, on top of the city’s agreements to pay for improvements to 7th, 8th, and 9th Street all of which lie within Cherapa Place.
I do not have the answers here, however, it strikes me, that the Mayor already had the directive to sign the contract, based on the fact the council already had rewarded him the 2023 Budget itself.
Then, we have the issues related with Minnesota Avenue – the delays in obtaining materials, supplies to do the projoect this year, are now put on delay until next year.
The mayors office did nothing different here, other than come to the city to ask to use the $8,000,000 from the Minnesota Ave funds, alongside taking $3 million from reserves to cover the updated costs of the Bridge.
I really think it comes down to the promises made prior to 2020, let alone the investments being made in the area.
The council can still play its active roll here, by investigating the facts, the evidence, and parts of the contract, by asking questions, and by doing so, can probally pay a direct roll over the next year in managing the expenses going forward.
I rather see them now work through their audit or operation committees to work side by side with the Mayors office to better manage the project(s) today.
from jodi schwan article: “The city this week gave the notice to proceed on the project to Journey Group’s SFC Civil Constructors division, which was the only bidder.
For Journey, “this was a project we wanted to get,” CEO Randy Knecht said. “It would have been difficult for us building Cherapa if we didn’t have control of both the bridge at the Cherapa site in terms of the coordination. As such, SFC Civil made what Knecht describes as a “pretty aggressive” play for the project, with a bid designed as though it would be a competitive process.
“We didn’t bid it assuming we were the only bidder,” he said. “We bid it expecting it to be competitive, and we really wanted the project because it would benefit both the bridge and the street project and the Cherapa project to have the same company in charge of both. That’s how we looked at it.””
throwing the bullshit flag on this one. something smells really fishy and it ain’t the dirty river.
Reply to “Update II: The frosting could not be put on any thicker;”
But … that’s, … that’s not frosting! And I don’t think it’s chocolate either!
Very heavy layer of bovine excrement from the favorite shill for the Chamber cronyists in Sioux Falls.
More disingenuous “jounalism” from the Sioux Falls Crony.business:
“After weeks of discussion, the City Council agreed to move ahead with the project …”
Weren’t the details of the size of the bid for this project divulged to the entire City Council only hours before they were asked to pass first and final approval?
Mike, the issue isn’t whether we need this project or not, budgeting is also not the issue. This is about taking fiscal responsibility for a $10 million cost overrun and taking the proper action to remedy it. This is about a failure in transparency and poor negotiations.
Could we squeeze in 46? If we got down to 35 that would be rather King Arthur of us, but that also sounds rather Taupeville-ish.
( and Woodstock adds: “Say, we once had an Rocket Man Road – pre-45 – but what about a Dua Lane in a new development?”…. 🙂 )
https://www.instagram.com/p/8X3HpNgGY0/?hl=en
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs57adf_ZpM
Can’t we just keep the old bridge with the help of some really nice inexpensive buttresses?
Scott,
I do agree with you. I do not know if this counts as a cost over run, or it is the effects of the economy. We would not know this unless the council will do its job going forward. I am only one voice, and I been begging the Council to utilize their full powers for sometime now, so time will tell. Perhaps is enough for the people to push the city to enact Section 2.09.
Lets remember, Scott, you say it every week – the Council can at anytime it wishes go out and seek their own “Estimates”, and they can in fact use their investigative powers to question the Mayors Office, Public Works Dept, the Finance Dept, and the City Attorneys Office, they can also subpoena and question the Journey Group..
IF they are not willing to do their job, then they cannot fault the Mayors Office of utilizing its Full Power.