Sioux Falls Charter Revision Commission denies my proposals based on (non-legal) Opinions

by

As I told the Commission at the end of the meeting during general public input, I had NO doubt they would deny my proposals because the CRC kills all proposals unless it comes from the administration in the form of fixing a typo in the charter.

I have reminded the CRC in the past that it was not their job to deny proposals based on their personal opinions but based on the law and if they legally could be on the ballot.

I do believe they had a good argument against my TIF changes proposal based on inserting a whole new section in the Charter. I also think the legislature once again is going to fiddle with TIF qualifications this winter in the legislative session. No harm no foul.

But where I take issue is the comments coming from Chair Justin Smith and Commissioner Anne Hajek when reviewing the other two proposals (directors living within the city and public input) Both said that these measures are ‘micro-managing’ and that they are trying to fix something that ‘isn’t broken’. These are merely personal opinions not based on the legality of the proposals being on the ballot, and two commissioners agreed with me. Commissioner Carl Zylstra voted for both of the proposals and Commissioner Larry Long (a former Judge and AG) voted for the director residence requirement. He said if it wasn’t prohibitive of the city to help pay re-location expenses he could support it.

I offered plenty of evidence that public input at all the public board meetings is broken, but they hung on the fact that it was 5 minutes and Hajek used the tired old argument that the business people and poor school kids had to sit through public input. Once again giving no LEGAL basis why this could not be put on the ballot and be voted on.

At the end during general public input where I informed them they denied my proposals not based on legality and evidence but just personal opinions and assumptions, I also reminded them the reason why the only two people in the audience was Mike Zitterich and I was because they hold the meetings at an inconvenient time for the public. I told them that city government is turning into serving leadership and the city employees and NOT the public. They quickly adjourned.

Sioux Falls Charter Revision to meet Wednesday, Nov 10, 3:30 PM

by

The Charter Revision will be reviewing my 3 proposals and I will be present for questions. They have written preliminary language if they agree to put them on the ballot. While I did ask for 30 days for a director to become a resident, Commissioner Zylstra is recommending 6 months, which I could agree to. We will see how that plays out.

I also see that Joe Kirby is proposing that the mayor be removed from the council meetings as chair and that city council elections be decided by plurality (or ranked choice). I have never agreed with a run-off in the council races. Another bone head idea from Rex Rolfing. I have also said that the Mayor should only have VETO power and NOT break ties or run meetings. If it is a tie, the measure should fail.

The Sioux Falls City Council meets Tuesday, Nov 9 at 4 and 6 PM

The two big items under 1st reading are the wastewater bonds from the state (inevitable) and the garbage container ordinance. Neitzert is basically providing an amendment to leave it as is. I have often thought that it should be up to the consumer as to where they place the containers. If they want to place at the end of the driveway, fine. If they want to leave by house, also fine. There should be NO extra charges for a valet service. Since this will most likely remain private for the foreseeable future it should be up to the consumers to dictate what they want. As for the drivers getting injured for grabbing cans, that is part of the hazards of the job. Wear the proper footwear. My mailman wears cleated snow boots in the winter.

Sioux Falls City Election, YES on A, NO on B

by

As people have been absentee voting, many have asked me how to vote on the amendments. Amendment ‘A’ is pretty easy to understand. Amendment ‘B’ is a little more complicated, but I will lay it out for you 1) VOTE NO 2) If this was as simple as following state law, the council would have passed this already, they did not, because it is more complicated than that 3) this would increase the number of signatures you would need to petition our city charter. It should be made easier to petition our local government not harder. This is simply an attempt to justify the questionable rules that were implemented on Triple Check the Charter. How can you apply rules to petitioning when citizens haven’t approved those rules yet? VOTE NO!

UPDATE: Sioux Falls City Council Agenda, Monday, Feb 3, 2020

by

This week’s meetings are on Monday due to the council going to Pierre on Tuesday.

Charter Revision Commission Meeting • 3 PM

Only agenda item is a going away party for Departing Members Pauline Poletes and Robert Thimjon. They accomplished their very successful shut down of charter amendments. Party on Garth.

City Council Informational Meeting • 4 PM

On presentation on Arterial Street Sidewalk Installation by Chad Huwe, City Engineer

City Council Regular Meeting • 7 PM

Item #6, Approval of Contracts;

Sub Item #8, $150K to USD Discovery Center

Sub Item #9, $275K to Development Foundation

Sub Item #25, $136K to YMCA for after school programs and

Sub Item #26, $111 to VOA for after school programs.

I wish the merits of these four items would have been discussed in the regular meeting instead of stuffed into the consent agenda.

Item #7, Change orders, we will be handing about $1.5 million to Journey Construction for the Village on the River Bunker Ramp.

Item #20, Transfer of 2020 Retail Liquor License, with video lottery terminals, and 2020 Package Liquor License from Badlands Gaming LLC, Badlands Gaming, 1600 West Russell Street, to South Dakota Veterans Alliance Inc., 1600 West Russell Street. It looks like this deal is moving forward.

Item #25 (29-30), 2nd Reading of TIF agreement with Lloyd Companies and Sioux Steel Development. As I have said in the past this will pass. I guess councilor Stehly will be absent from this meeting and NOT voting on the issue due to previous commitments. I have said that a better approach would be to gift them the River Greenway property (so they can develop it at their expense) and give them a $10 million dollar TIF only for that redevelopment. I think it is a crying shame that local lawmakers across the country are suckered into these kind of agreements which are truly developer handouts and little else. I’m praying for an amendment, but I don’t think it will happen.

Item #26, 2nd Reading, ordinance on campaign financing and elections. I feel there will be some amendments to this item and it will be an interesting to see what is slipped in. I still think that this ordinance should be amended so it is NOT implemented until after the municipal election.

Item #27, Supplemental appropriations for police overtime pay for special events. Like I said yesterday in a post, I fully support this, but I think a discussion should have occurred with the council before the mayor’s office proposed this. It is the council’s job as laid out in charter to be the legislators, not the mayor’s office.

Item #28, Parks and Rec fee increases. You will notice that some of the biggest increases are at the Midco Aquatic Center.

Item #31, Resolution approving preliminary plan for the controversial Golden Gateway addition.

Item #32, A RESOLUTION REMOVING UNCOLLECTIBLE, DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS FROM THE RECORDS. Interesting that these accounts are confidential?

Item #34, Resolution, allowing Landscapes Unlimited to modify the noncompetition clause under the Management Agreement.

Item #35, Charter Revision Commission presents their ballot amendments. I’m urging a vote NO on amendment ‘B’ which would increase the number of signatures needed for a charter revision petition.

More information to come.

Planning Commission Meeting • 6 PM • Wed, Feb 5

Item #2, F, Consent agenda, Sanford Addition for office?

As I predicted, The Sioux Falls Charter Revision Commission did very little in 2019

by

As I suspected from the get go, the CRC found a way to kill any meaningful legislation for the city’s April election. Oh but they did find a way to make it more difficult to petition our government;

The petitions shall contain or have attached thereto throughout their circulation the full text of the proposed charter amendment and must be signed by registered voters of the city in the number of at least 5 percent of the total number of registered voters at the last regular city election, or the number of signatures required by state law, whichever is greater.

In other words they are trying to get the voters to pass rules that they have already decided to implement on Triple Check the Charter. Yes, folks, they are applying rules that haven’t been amended yet. Isn’t that special? I also got a kick out of the attorney’s explanation on the ballot;

City Attorney’s Explanation of Amendment B:
The current language is, at times, less stringent in its requirements for charter amendment than what is required by the State Constitution. Such is not permissible under State law, which requires the standards of City charter and ordinances to be at least as stringent as State law. The proposed change, as approved and submitted by the Charter Revision Commission, would ensure that the requirements set forth in the charter for voter initiation of a charter amendment are at least as stringent as those set forth in the State Constitution, thus satisfying State law.

What they are basically saying is we MUST vote yes to satisfy State Law. My question is why aren’t we doing that already? And why are we voting on it? I’ll give you my explanation, you can vote NO on this, there is NO requirement we follow state law on this because we are a Home Rule Charter city, we make the rules when it comes to OUR elections. The SOS doesn’t run our local elections, and he shouldn’t. Don’t believe this poppycock, it is just a scare tactic to make it more difficult to petition our government in Sioux Falls and little else. They are trying to hoodwink the voters into passing this, because they know the requirement is not needed.

I vaguely remember the chair of CRC saying at the beginning of the 2019 meetings that it is the CRC’s job to make sure nothing harmful gets on the ballot that could have unintended consequences if passed. Kettle meet black.