Every couple of years, this happens when councilors are walking out the door, they present a ton of items that they know could never pass while they were serving the last 8 years, and there are some humdingers.

But before we get to the stupidity, I will say that this administration and council really missed a gigantic opportunity to put the aquatic bonds on the ballot in the last election. Even some councilors are asking why they didn’t do it.

Because we have NO leadership or leadership skills. Any dolt in local government could have told you the best way to get peeps to the polls and build public trust is to have a bond election. But instead the mayor cries in his car on social media ‘nobody likes me.’

Maybe it is true?

Informational Meeting • 4PM • Tuesday, May 7, 2024

Update on Aquatics ‘MESS’

Regular City Council Meeting • 6 PM

Item #69, 2nd Reading, Ordinance, The purpose of this rezone is for the potential future expansion of the existing office building to the north and match the zoning to what it was before Shape Places.

(The applicant lied to the council with his first rezone, and the council should deny his rezone based on that lie. I have a feeling they have enough votes to pass it, because I am sure the applicant threatened litigation, and ironically, he would win due to constitutional property rights. The lying part? That’s ok. This council wouldn’t vote for anything unless they could cover up the lies.)

Item #70, 2nd Reading, Ordinance, The proposed ordinance repeals the existing prohibition against candy and balloon distribution at parades.

(2nd Reading, while I could care less if kids are getting pelted with candy, my concern is the MJ gummies and other substances. Is it really a good idea to give candy to kids from strangers? I would think a kid doctor would know better?)

Item #73, 1st Reading, Ordinance, Appropriates a $9.05M transfer from the General Fund to the Sales/Use Tax Fund, and then again also appropriates $9.05M from the Sales/Use Tax Fund to acquire an existing aquatics and recreation facility located in western Sioux Falls. It is intended that proceeds from a future bond issuance will provide reimbursement for the acquisition.

(We don’t need to buy an existing facility only to CHARGE a fee anyway. What is the F’ing point?! You take membership fees from the private sector and move to the public sector. What problem are you solving? NONE! If the city really needed this, I would applaud Sanford, BUT WE DON’T! Just another transfer of tax dollars to Sanford, once again, solving no problem. If peeps are already using the facility privately, how is me owning it better?).

Item #74, 1st Reading, Ordinance, This ordinance authorizes the City to coordinate with the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources on the issuance of bonds and execute a loan agreement (Exhibit B) for Basin 15 Phase 2A/2B Sanitary Sewer Installation. This project will be using State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loans. The Basin 15 Sanitary Sewer Installation project area is on the west side of the city, near West 12th Street and Ellis Road.

(Funny, no mention of $23 million dollar bonds in recent weeks, must be too busy doing jumping jacks and hiding dead monkeys.)

Item #75, 1st Reading, Ordinance, The proposed ordinance would require the city administration to provide the city council by June 1 of each year a list of all the subsidy agreements with outside organizations that will be included in the Mayor’s recommended budget. The list must include details such as a brief description of the program, financial results, the programs impact and objectives, and other pertinent information.

(This has to do with the extremely high reserves we have. Over $80 million and 37%-city ordinance says they should have no more then 25% in reserves).

Item #76, 1st Reading, Ordinance. The $50,000 supplemental appropriation to fund a discounted admissions day at the Great Plains Zoo.

(No. No. No. The zoo already receives millions in subsidies from the taxpayers for maintenance, operations, etc., every year. Is the zoo really going to be in dire straits if they give ONE free admission, ONE day a year? Seriously? Oh, and it ain’t even free. It is for a ‘discounted’ admission fee. So not only are we giving them an extra $50k they don’t need, the taxpayers funding this can’t even use the grant, because they still have to pay to walk thru the doors. How about this, make it free, make the zoo pay for it, and have them staff the vendor booths so they can make loads of money on concessions, etc. I sometimes think the brain trust in this town could fit in a shoebox.)

Item #77, 1st Reading, This proposed ordinance would allow a private applicant requesting a rezone, license or permit an opportunity to provide a rebuttal following public input.

(This would give 2x time to applicants and proponents over opponents. The Planning Commission handles this well right now, they call up the applicant if there is a rebuttal or further comments, it works well within the framing of Robert’s Rules. Proponents and Opponents deserve equal public input time, if the applicant needs to clarify something, the board presiding, and specifically the chair, can call them forward. This is part of the new council’s ‘Pro-Business’ agenda. I have been hearing this being whispered that the new council will strictly be ‘Pro-Business’. So how is this different then what we have had since the charter changed? Watching these toddlers run the city is funny, but it is also hurts a bit.)

Item #78, 1st Reading, Ordinance, The proposed supplemental appropriations ordinance is intended to fund an early childhood scholarship grant at Southeast Technical College and a professional services agreement with Woods Fuller to conduct childcare research. Both agreements will be brought forward on May 14, 2024.

(Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Who would want to learn a career that earns you $12-14 an hour? Maybe SE Tech could have a program on how to mop floors, run food, wash dishes, etc., all jobs that pay better and you don’t have to change a diaper or wipe a snotty nose. As if the reason people are not getting into childcare because they just don’t understand it? Oh, they understand it, and it pays SH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!T)

Item #81, 1st Reading, ordinance, Under this proposed ordinance, an at-large and district city council candidate must receive the highest number of votes and receive at least 34 percent of the vote. Current ordinance requires a majority of the votes for an at-large and district city council member to be elected as council member.

(This should have never been passed by that idiot Rex Rolfing. One of the most vile councilors ever. I could write a book about what this did clem did, and the vindictiveness of him. I hope when this passes Tuesday, which I hope it will, that at least one of them have the courage to say how stupid the idea was and how stupid the councilor that proposed this was. Rotten is as Rotten does.)

Items #85-86, resolutions, Adoption of the proposed master plan for Kuehn Park AND Frank Olson Park.

(Well looky there, the piss poor poops couldn’t get his council on board with his stupid bond plans, but golly gee, approve our ‘concept’. Paul was the kind of kid that made his mom do his valentine box for school and when he got tons of compliments he took credit.)

Item #89, Resolution, Approval of this motion would appoint Thea Rave as the City Council’s Executive Support Coordinator.

(Not sure if you know Tim Rave, Thea’s father, but he is a real gem, making sure after getting his golden parachute his kids are inline to get political suitable jobs. I am wondering if any of the councilors will have the guts to ask what her qualifications are and if a councilor that supports her hire says, ‘Because, it’s who yah know, now what’s you know.’ There will be ZERO discussion before they vote for this, they know it is a political appointee and they will NOT want to draw attention to it. I hope she puts on her big kid pants, because I would love to be a fly on the wall when she receives her first Sierra phone call. LOL.)

Guest Post, Cathy Brechtelsbauer

(I will be posting later tonight the very troublesome agenda for the entire city council meeting-DL. Pretty much Items 70-89 suck!)

Sioux Falls advocates; Two items that will impact the lives of children and families in our city: 1. TODAY 2:30-8pm, downtown Library. Drop in during that time to learn and meet with bus planners about proposed revisions in the city bus system. This includes revised fixed-routes and coverage area and use of the on-demand system during weekdays. They are interested in your feedback.

2. TOMORROW(Tue) about a plan for new aquatics centers and possible much higher swim fees.  Two meetings, both at city council chambers, 235 W 10th St.
a. City Council “Informational meeting” at 4pm has this: “Recreation & Aquatics Bond Update” by Shawn Pritchett, Finance Directorb. The regular City Council meeting at 6pm has the first reading on the decision to put millions into the funding for this plan. (Final vote will be at 2nd reading.)

It seems to be Item #73 on the agenda.  (Don’t be fooled by the item#. At a recent meeting I noticed the council was on item#69 only 20 minutes into the meeting.) The Dakota Scout had a May 1 article on this, but it was only online, not in the print edition, so you may not have seen it. Here are excerpts from “Proposed cost of using Sioux Falls’ new pools. . .”:

     “The cost of running a trio of new indoor and outdoor pools and recreation centers Sioux Falls City Hall has in the works will be shy of a million dollars a year. But that low annual subsidy will come at a cost for users of the facilities.

     Keeping yearly operations bills down for a new indoor recreation center and aquatics facility, an outdoor water park, and a full-scale wellness center is a selling point for Mayor Paul TenHaken’s administration as it prepares to ask councilors to approve a $77-million bond to pay for the ambition.

       . . . The Parks and Recreation Department is proposing offsetting more than 80 percent of operational costs at both the indoor recreation and aquatics center planned at Frank Olson Park and a westside wellness center the mayor’s office wants to purchase from Sanford Health. Membership fees a significant portion of those revenues, the proposed levels are $40 for an individual per month, $50 per month for a couple, and $60 for a family membership package to each facility.  [Cathy’s comment: Note it says “per month”!]

     Sioux Falls Finance Director Shawn Pritchett said Tuesday that the proposed fees are a starting point, and it will be up to the City Council to work with the administration to determine admission costs and what level of annual subsidy is prudent.

     . . .“When I hear $40, $50, $60 a month, that’s too high,” said Councilor David Barranco, who next week will vote on the proposed bond package the TenHaken administration intends to use to finance the multi-facility ambition. “We’re going to need to find a better solution. … That number is too high for the families in our community, as far as I’m concerned.”

     Beyond membership fees, the sponsorships and fundraising campaigns are also anticipated to generate revenues for each facility, said Leon Younger, a consultant hired to assist the city in financial planning.

       . . .Should the council approve the bond authorization in May, construction is not likely to begin on any of the facilities until 2025.”

Both these items have my attention due to their impact on low-income people in our city.

another informative article on the pool project from SF Simplified:  https://www.sfsimplified.com/the-city-is-looking-to-invest-77-million-in-new-pools-but-whats-the-ongoing-cost/

It also talks about fees “per month”. Currently, fees are per use, per season or annual. You can see them here:  https://www.siouxfalls.gov/activities-recreation/aquatics/pools/midco-aquatic-center/admission

UPDATE: Item #89 on next Tuesday’s city council meeting they will be approving the hire of Thea Rave the daughter of former legislator Tim Rave. And what are her qualifications? They don’t even provide a BIO of her in the agenda.

I will hold off on her name until the council announces the hire, because I’m not sure if they are aware, but it was NO surprise to me that they hired someone who is politically connected. I guess she was hired to take on the roll of executive assistant to the city council. Let’s just say her father was a former Republican Legislator and runs an organization right now, ironically a job he got being politically connected.

This doesn’t surprise me, they weren’t going to promote from within, and I had no doubt they would hire someone that is politically connected.

There was NO WAY they were going to allow an outsider to have this job. Now maybe she will stay at her desk working most of the day instead of running a pet store.

UPDATE: Item #81 on the City Council’s Tuesday Agenda

Council has been working on this and plan to have 1st reading next week so they can pass 2nd reading at their last meeting on May 21st. They have seen that councilor Rolfing’s idea was about as bad as they come. I know that the council has at least 4 councilors that support it, so I don’t know how the vote will go, but I have a feeling it will go away real quick, no matter who wins tonight.

Basically we would bring back a 34% plurality rule (if any candidate gets at least 34% of the vote, they don’t need a runoff).

UPDATE: Here is a great article about the basis of the ‘Blank Slate’ candidate from the NYT.

So after spending thousands and thousands of dollars getting people elected in Sioux Falls, Matt Paulson decided to run a victory lap (even though Thomason didn’t win by much, and if the campaign was longer, Jordan would have won).

He said this about Jordan on a blog comment (not here):

Jordan probably had the best “grass roots” campaign in Sioux Falls city council history, and he probably would have won if he were a true “blank slate” candidate and not someone with a track record of creating controversy.

You mean like these blank slates you funded?

Councilor Sarah Cole

Mayor Paul TenHaken

Councilor David Barranco

CounTcilor Alex Jensen

Councilor Marshall Selberg (not sure Paulson funded Selberg in his first election)

What have they done besides allowing candy at parades, getting rid of a bowling license and dismantling the internal audit department. Or better yet transforming city government into a closed state of business. Or not living in your district for 2 years ILLEGALLY!

Yeah, not a fan of the political movement towards ‘blank slate’ candidates. Paulson needs these slates, or as I know them, stampers to get what he wants.

He also funds these candidates to the high hilt, this is really the reason they have been winning, a steady flow of money.

I like candidates with experience, and I think both Richard and Jordan have experience and would be ready on day one instead of wandering around the basement of Carnegie reading a copy of Robert’s Rules for Dummies.

As for Paul and his postcard about voting I found it to be ironic. The guy wanted people to get out the vote for his hand picked puppets but throws cold water on letting people have a legal bond election on the aquatics bonds. If that would have been on the ballot in the General, voter turnout would have been huge. Bond elections are emotional for people. Not sure why, but they are.

Right now we have a bunch of business people running the city behind the scenes and Poops goes along with it while not allowing the council to do ANYTHING!

I did have a great convo with Richard last night and he does have some original things he wants to bring forward (and some of them are AWESOME and don’t cost taxpayers a dime). So I am going to keep an open mind about Richard. Now if he can get Mr. Lime Green Lambo to shut his trap, that would be great.

I think the first order of business for the new council would be to ban Paulson from making any more political contributions . . . I know, I know, a violation of his 1st Amendment Rights, but since he doesn’t understand that Amendment, maybe it will apply?