UPDATE: I guess the neighbors are going to Not oppose the alcohol license now. Which is good, because I need a beer to wash down my boutique benny’s.

The proposed Bunker Coffee Shop at 9th and Grange has gone thru so many business proposals since it’s inception they really should honor the process by calling the place, ‘The Chameleon’;

Halbach also requested a conditional use permit for beer and wine — though it’s for brunch-related beverages as hours will be 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. daily.

An outdoor beer and coffee bar is planned in the back on a vacant lot he also owns, designed for overflow seating because there’s indoor space for only about 20 guests.

So he wants to change it from a neighborhood coffee shop to a boutique brunch place? Okay. Or maybe a beer garden;

“So this will essentially allow us to send people to the outdoor beer and coffee bar to get a drink while they wait for a table and play yard games or hang out in the yard,” he said, estimating that area could hold up to 50 guests.

I have no issue with allowing them to have beer and wine, BUT, I also don’t live in the neighborhood. I can tell you my experience from having a pretty popular bar only a block from my house a few years ago, it can come with some extra noise but was a welcome addition, I was sad when it closed only to be replaced by another telephone booth casino.

I can tell you that people who live in Pettigrew and Cathedral neighborhoods are opposed to the alcohol request, mainly because Bunker House Coffee keeps changing what it originally proposed, from exterior/interior designs to taxpayer supported on-street parking and facade easements;

The project received a $95,000 facade easement grant from the city of Sioux Falls, and work to redo the brick is scheduled to start soon.

Interesting the facade now jumped $20K from what was originally asked for.

“The guts of the building are in really bad shape,” Halbach said.

The GUTS?! Just looking at the building you could tell it is a complete wreck. I am all for historic preservation and commend people who want to fix up older structures, but personally I would have bulldozed it and built a one-story building with roof patio that would have comparable historic architecture. Probably would have saved him a million bucks.

Hey, I get it, we all have our passions in life, but you can’t bring along the public in a concept that changes it’s colors every 5 minutes.

I think there will be some public blowback to the alcohol permit, but like the facade easement (to the former campaign treasurer of Councilor Curt Soehl), this will pass with flying colors.

Who wants a Mimosa?

Last week a person told me a funny story about a retired priest attending Christmas at the Cathedral (he will remain nameless). Either before or after the show he introduces himself to the lady sitting next to him and says,

“You look familiar. Did you attend one of my parishes as a child?”

(This certain priest served in many parishes throughout South Dakota)

She replies,

“I’m Kristi Noem, your governor.”

I found the story funny considering Noem’s quest to be someone on a National level and the fact most of her administrative staff has to be recruited from out of state. Maybe Noem should give the good father a job since she only hires people that don’t know her.

The Cathedral and Pettigrew Heights neighborhood associations have already made it clear they do NOT want the greenspace and community gardens at 9th & Grange to be used for affordable housing. Both associations have shown that there are plenty of empty lots and houses that need to be torn down throughout both neighborhoods that can be used to move affordable houses to the neighborhood without using the greenspace.

As I mentioned in the past both associations have plenty of evidence that the school district and the city have been quietly working behind the scenes to take over this space for affordable housing.

A person who attended the most recent Pettigrew Heights association meeting said a city official(?) told some of the attendees that there is still a plan to move affordable houses to the greenspace (Sanford expansion was mentioned).

The land is currently owned by the School District and they may have to get an appraisal on the land before transferring it. If that happens the school board and the city council would have to approve a land transfer (there may be some legal issues with usage). The city could take it over as a park or they could try to transfer the land for affordable housing (the city already maintains the space for the school district).

I guess the first place to watch is the school board, who currently make most decisions behind closed doors, then show up to the public meeting to rubber stamp those nontransparent decisions. The agendas will have to be scrutinized closely because they may try to slip it in on the consent agenda.

As of today, the school district maintains they have NO plans for the space . . . but would they tell us if they did?

Between the 4 PM and 6 PM meetings there is a recognition ceremony for the exiting councilors, Janet Brekke, Christine Erickson, and Rick Kiley at 5 PM.

MEETING CALENDAR

Informational Meeting • 4 PM

• Presentation from the Sioux Empire Housing Partnership Introduction by Hugo Barron, Sioux Empire Housing Partnership (not sure if this has anything to do with the plan to move 14 affordable houses to Pettigrew? )

The two neighborhoods will meet Monday, May 9th at 7:30 PM at the downtown Central Church to share their hopes for the future of the space.

Representatives from the City of Sioux Falls and the Sioux Falls School District will be at the meeting.

The unofficial story is that the school district is planning to move homes that they bought by Whittier (for its expansion) to this green space that they own. The neighborhoods (Cathedral and Pettigrew) did a survey with residents of the neighborhood that will be shared Monday Night. As I understand it the over 100 residents that responded said they want to keep it as green space.

I will try to attend the meeting to hear what the city and school district have to say about keeping this on the down low. I was told several months ago by a school district official that they had a plan to move the houses out of Whittier and re-use them within the city limits, they never mentioned this plan. My assumption was that they were just going to move them to various available lots in the core of the city, which I fully support, I see their intentions may be something else.

The worst part about this is the total lack of transparency. They kept this quiet because they knew there would be pushback.

Regular Meeting • 6 PM

Item #4, While four councilors are getting recognition awards, for some reason the Mayor’s Youth Council is getting an award, and they should! Anyone who could sit through those meetings after the Mayor’s friends kids were forced to go to them not only deserve an award but a college credit.

Item #7, Approval of Contracts, Sub-Item #16, Helpline Center Inc., $30K, To Provide Staffing and Support for the Sioux 52 Mentorship Initiative Agreement.

While I support mentorship, I was always under the assumption that if this gets public funding it should come from the School District coffers. But let’s remember, the Sioux 52 program was setup to be funded by the DT Rotary as a non-profit and not something taxpayers would kick into. This is also an initiative the mayor pushed as HIS pet project, and I commend him for it, so to suddenly shove it in the consent agenda as a spending item that the council has to approve without a presentation is speculative (see the email below). Just because it is coming out of the mayor’s office budget doesn’t mean this is FREE money. A better way to approach it would be for him to use his fundraising skills and clout to get this supplemented by non-profits (you know like church volunteers cleaning up after a tornado). Hopefully this will be pulled for discussion since this is just another backdoor approach for taxpayers to fund something on the mayor’s wish list.

Item #22, A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF SIOUX FALLS TO SET ASIDE TWO ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSES FROM THE ON-SALE LICENSE LOTTERY FOR USE AT THE CITY’S GOLF COURSES. (So the Pavilion which is ran by a private management company yet owned by the city and taxpayers went out and and bought a license (I think?) on the open market but the city courses that are owned by taxpayers and ran by a private contractor just get licenses for free? Very random. And since these are city owned licenses does that mean the city receives all the profits from liquor sales?

Items 30-35, RESOLUTIONS OF THE CITY OF SIOUX FALLS APPROVING DIAGONAL PARKING (I find it interesting that several of these project areas are not even finished yet and the city is suddenly being proactive about it. I’m all for it as it is a better use of space, but a part of me wonders in 10-20 years if we are going to need it. I have argued that the use of self-driving cars will eliminate the need for parking in our core.)

Make no mistake, beating an incumbent city councilor is not an easy task, ask Jensen who had to spend $127K and lucking out by having primary voters (who rarely vote in city elections) help him achieve the task.

Obviously it doesn’t hurt that Soehl now has two challengers, a well-intentioned, all around family guy and a fierce citizen advocate. We could likely see them in the run-off or one of them crushing the 51% threshold.

But what really makes Soehl beatable is that he really isn’t an incumbent because the Central district he was elected in doesn’t exist anymore and you really don’t need the McKennan park elite’s vote to win in Central.

The re-districting commission now have included parts of Whittier and Cathedral neighborhoods. Match that with Pettigrew Heights and you have pretty strong working class voters.

While it will be a challenge for the other two candidates to battle with an incumbent, Soehl is really an incumbent with NO home and will NOT be re-elected.