Jennifer's Musings

Where Shall We Put those Railroad Tracks?

2012-02-28T11:28:00.000-06:00

Three hundred people showed up Monday night to hear city plans on the railroad relocation project. It is natural for the proponents of the project to attack those residents who are opposed to it being in their "neighborhood." This is an exciting project that would spur development in the downtown area, the heart of Sioux Falls. However, opposition to the proposed main switching yard location from Brandon residents or opposition to the Canton siding alternative from southeast Sioux Falls residents is very real and must be addressed by city officials.

Two different issues in this project, two very real concerns. One area is zoned industrial and has always been industrial. One area is residential and has never been zoned industrial.

I am at a crossroads regarding this debate because I am a southeast Sioux Falls resident. I am pro Downtown, always have been, always will be. But I also live less than a mile from the proposed Canton line siding alternative. Full disclosure - I am one of those southeast Sioux Falls residents that question why this siding alternative is proposed for a residential area instead of an industrial area. I question why the southeast and east side of Sioux Falls must be sacrificed for this project.

The primary component of the Rail Relocation Project is the relocation of the downtown main switching yard farther east, along Rice Street. But a smaller switching area would be needed to allow railroad crews to move the engine from one end of the train to the other. This switching area is referred to as a "siding alternative."

The Canton siding alternative is new to this project and this location was just introduced last year because the Falls Park alternative is not considered viable. The Canton siding alternative proposal impacts a zoned residential area. Railroad switching activities should not be located in zoned residential areas. What happened to the proposed siding alternatives in the northeast part of Sioux Falls? What happened to a possible location for a new siding along the existing Corson Subdivision mainline south of downtown.

This project has languished for so long that options seem to be getting financially out of reach. The Feds are threatening to take back the authorization of funds. It looks like the taxpayers will have to pony up additional money to help pay for this project. As a result, residential areas are proposed to be sacrificed to make this project work. Whose fault is this? It is the city's fault for not moving this project forward when the federal earmark was first given to the city back in 2006.

Why did the first environmental assessment get rejected? The intent of the EA is to provide a full
and fair discussion of environmental impacts of the Project and to inform decision makers and the public of the reasonable alternatives that would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment. When you keep changing or adding new locations, or when you can't come to an agreement on where the main switching line should be and where the siding alternative should be, an environmental assessment will never get done.

2006 to the present, 2012; no wonder everyone is upset and now taking sides. It has grown into something no one initially envisioned when the project was first proposed. Houses have been built near a zoned industrial area identified for the main line move. A zoned residential area is proposed to be sacrificed to accommodate railroad switching activities. It's no wonder this project has become controversial. That's what happens when 6 years elapse and no activity or real progress takes place to move a major project forward.

Public hearings were held in 2006, 2007 and 2008 after the federal earmark was approved. No presentations were made to the City Council on this project until November 2010. Give credit to Mayor Huether for attempting to finally move this project forward since he was elected in May 2010. Five presentations have been made to the City Council since November 2010 regarding this project. Yesterday was the first public hearing on this project since 2008.

It's just too bad that this administration wants to sacrifice the entire eastside corridor to do it. It is just too bad this administration wants to put a flurry of train activity in the heart of residential southeast Sioux Falls. It's just too bad that the Canton siding alternative will create a stanglehold on various high volume traffic intersections in east Sioux Falls. It's just too bad that the money needs associated with this big project are growing leaps and bounds and the promise of federal money is not even a sure thing anymore. The rush to keep the federal money while sacrificing the east and southeast residents of Sioux Falls is a poor solution.

Where indeed shall we put those railroad tracks? The chant - not in my neighborhood - seems to be growing every day. It will continue to grow when you choose to sacrifice zoned residential instead of choosing zoned industrial land for this project.

City Council Election-Is That All There Is?

2012-02-26T11:10:00.002-06:00

I looked at the candidates who have submitted a petition to run for open city council seats. It is no surprise that incumbent elected councilors Jamison and Anderson, Jr. are running for re-election. It is also no big surprise that "anointed" councilor Karsky is running to keep his gifted seat on the council. They all have challengers.

Two retreads are running for the at-large seat vacated by Vernon Brown - Knudsen and Staggers. Both these candidates have had 8 years on the council. Frankly, I think it is time to let some new blood get a chance at policy decision making on the city council. Unfortunately, no civic and business leaders have stepped up to the plate. Knudsen says she is running because no one else will and Staggers just wants another chance to irritate and annoy with his personal agenda - again. The rest of the candidates are unknowns except for Ysbrand who is a repetitious wannabee.

I have actually heard people who normally wouldn't give Staggers a nod say they will vote for him just because he will be an an irritant and stick in the eye to the mayor and it will be worth watching. It is a poor excuse to vote for someone. However, it is indicative of the state of city politics these days and a sad commentary on what is going on down at City Hall.

I have a theory. Maybe it is all wet but here it is. I think no one of business caliber, thoughtful thinking and demonstrated civic responsibility and involvement has thrown their hat into the race because the current climate at City Hall and Carnegie Town Hall is just too out of control and unattractive. Who wants to be in office when that event center debacle shows it's true fiscal colors? I wouldn't want my name on those documents either. Who really wants to work with this mayor or current councilors?

Who wants to be in office right now with a city council and mayor who don't seem to understand that this is not about them. Who wants to be on the city council when the city council fires people in secret, seem to defy open meeting laws, breaks their own administrative rules and does't show real vision for this city. The self indulgent behavior down on 9th and 10th Streets makes one have to seriously consider whether now is the right time to want to join such a group. Obviously not.

I feel sorry for the dedicated, hardworking appointive and civil service employees who go to work everyday and keep city government running in spite of these elected officials. They are the unsung heros and they are the ones who make sure we have water when we turn on the faucet, when our toilets flush, who plow our streets, protect us and are first responders in time of need. They are the ones left standing long after elected officials leave office. They are the ones who provide continuity, stability and sound professional advice and counsel regarding city government operations. And they are the ones faced with these elected officials who think they are the only ones who seem to know what is right and what should be done. The elected officials seem to just like the sound of their own voices and are intent on who is going to win which debate. They must look at the pool of candidates and wonder what next.

Is that all there is out there? It seems so.

2012-02-17T12:45:00.002-06:00

I have a family emergency and will not be posting anything for the next two weeks. Thanks for visiting Jennifer's Musings.

Neighborhood Activism in the Southeast District

2012-02-11T14:55:00.000-06:00

A citizen living in the new residential development south of 57th Street between the new bridges over 57th Street and 69th Street has decided to get involved in the Railroad Relocation Project. This southeast resident has put together the flyer below and is handing it out in the neighborhood. This person indicated to me that the majority of the residents indicated they knew nothing about the issue and don't subscribe to the local newspaper. Very disturbing considering the fact that a switching railroad line accommodating 100 car trains could be in their backyard in the distant future.

At issue is the city's proposal to select the Canton rail line as the siding alternative in the relocation of the main switching yard in Downtown Sioux Falls. The city says they need the smaller switching yard to allow railroad crews to move the engine from one end of the train to the other. The city says that the two new bridges at 57th Street and 69th Street make this an attractive site for an alternate siding option for these trains.

They have chosen an area that is totally residential which will impact the quality of lives of thousands of residents. They are choosing to sacrifice the citizens in the Southeast District of Sioux Falls.

In addition, the entire east side of Sioux Falls will be impacted at the intersections of 49th and Southeastern Avenue, 26th Street and Southeastern Avenue and 14th Street and Southeastern Avenue and Cliff Avenue between 14th and 10th Streets. People need to wake up and get involved in this issue or they will certainly be woken up to the sound of the clickity clack of the trains moving on those rail lines, tooting of train horns at all hours of the day and night and the traffic congestion and blockage on the east side corridor of Sioux Falls.

This resident informed me that in talking with Southeast District Councilor Sue Aquilar, she said she wasn't sure the city might have little say in where the tracks are relocated. How can that be possible? If the City Council does not have final approval on this project then who does? This is a city project and the City Council, by Charter, has final authority over all appropriations. This project does not move forward without Council action.

Below is the flyer being distributed to neighbors in the Southeast District of Sioux Falls. Let's hope they all pay attention to what is being proposed for their neighborhood.

You and theRailroad Relocation Project

City Staffwill brief the City Council at Carnegie City Hall on the latest developments onFeb. 27, at 4:00 P.M.

On Feb. 27,the public will be able to present their comments at a meeting to be held atthe Orpheum Theatre on Phillips Avenue. Meeting time is 6:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M.

In 2005, the City of Sioux Fallssecured an earmark of $40,000,000 with the help of Senators Thune and Johnson.The purpose of this money was to pay for the removal of some of the tracks andthe relocations of the switching yard in the downtown area. Once this can be accomplished, the railroadswould be able to sell this land to investors in the downtown area.

The City has floated a number of proposalsfor this relocation project. One of the more recent ones is to move theswitching yard to the area between 57^th Street and 69^thstreet. This would mean that we would have two tracks in our backyard, a lot ofmovement and noise at all times of day, and trains parked there for extended periods of time.

This would have a huge impact on the qualityof your life and on your property values. While it would affect property ownerssouth of 57^th street the most directly, it would also affectproperty owners north of 57^th street because of increased traintraffic through this neighborhood. Street crossings would be also blocked morefrequently.

I recommend that you read the attached linksto learn more about how this project could affect you.

http://jenholsen.blogspot.com/2011/07/rail-yard-relocation-update-and.html

http://www.siouxfalls.org/PublicWorks/special_projects/rr_relocation_plan

Running for Political Office

2012-02-06T11:24:00.000-06:00

The city is facing an election in the Spring and 4 city council seats are up at the ballot box. People are circulating petitions to run for one of the four council seats and the filing deadline is February 24th.

One thing we know for sure is that appointive employees and civil service employees are prohibited from political activity per city ordinance:

Sec. 30-23. Political activity.

No officer or employee under the civil service or appointive officers shall, directly or indirectly, contribute money or anything of value to or render service in behalf of the candidacy of any candidate for nomination or election to any city office. The expression in private of personal views concerning candidates for political office is not prohibited hereby. Violation of this section shall be grounds for discharge or other disciplinary action.

Sec. 30-24. Political interference.

No officer or employee of the city shall discharge, degrade or promote or in any manner change the official rank of any other officer or employee or promise or threaten to do so for giving or withholding any contribution of money or other valuable thing for any party or political purpose or for refusal or neglect to render any party political service.

It is a fine line, however. Unions representing city employees have endorsed candidates for mayor and city council. A city employee can't publicly state they support someone or give money to someone's campaign but their spouse could do so. The point is, city employees still have the power to influence an election just by talking about it with friends and family and spreading the word that one candidate or another is good for employees or not.

Candidates go to the labor temple and promise the union membership all kinds of things. Sometimes those promises don't materialize once the person gets elected. Candidates can buy lists and send city employees letters about their campaign. I think we all can relate to the fact that what is said on the campaign trail doesn't always materialize into reality once elected. People say what ever they think is expedient to get support and win elections. Just watch the current GOP primary and you get the picture. People say things when they have no idea what city government is all about. They don't have any understanding of the doings of local government until they take office and start the hard work as a duly elected official. Attending a council meeting a month or two in advance of a campaign does not prove one is a knowledgeable candidate on public policy issues related to city government.

It was always interesting to observe the qualifications of candidates and read between the lines on what the candidate's motivation was to run for public office. I think some people just like the notariety and attention they get from running for office. They don't have any real sense of what influencing public policy means nor do they have the ability to identify a problem, recommend solutions and build consensus for change. Usually, building consensus and influencing public policy through various ordinance changes requires a tit for tat sometimes. You give me your vote on this and I will give you my vote on that. It happens at the national level, it happens at the state level, it happens at the local level. If you don't believe that, then you are very naive.

The question remains, do you need to be affliated with a political party to effectively run for and get elected to local office at the city or county level? Our political leanings are influenced by our families, others who may influence us and by our political affliliations. Anyone can circulate a petition to get on the ballot. You don't necessarily have to be politically active or be affiliated with a certain party to run for mayor or city council. Actually, party politics was not evident in city elections until this new form of government became effective back in 1995. Party politics is slowly creeping into city elections. There is no place in city government for left wing or right wing politicians like you see in the SD Legislature.

Just because you are an incumbent, doesn't necessarily mean you deserve to win re-election. However, incumbency is a powerful tool to winning re-election. I think the public is lazy when it comes to voting in an election. They either take the no-brainer approach and blindly vote straight party no matter what the qualifications of a candidate might be. They see a name they recognize and think, well, they already won an election, why not just let them keep their seat. They let someone else tell them who to vote for in an election and they blindly do it without asking why that person should get their vote. What makes them the best candidate? I wish more people would think about the answer before putting their pencil down on that little circle next to someone's name on the ballot just because someone told them to vote that way. Yet, party affliliation is evident in city elections these days and in appointments of director positions and boards and commissions.

It sure seems that running for political office is no longer made for everyone. If you don't have a political machine behind you, you might not be successful at the voting booth. The last mayoral election proved that. Local politics and running for local office is no longer a Mayberry moment where anyone can run and win. You need money. You need an organization. You need time. You need volunteers. You need some sort of a grass roots machine to run for political office. You need to knock on doors and spread the word about who you are and what you will do to be an effective elected official.

Influencing public policy and overseeing the public administration of city government is no longer a simple task. City government is complex. Influencing public policy and making changes to public policy is a big deal. Running for political office is no longer easy and for everyone. You need to have the stamina, a thick skin, a brain, humility, an open mind, some knowledge on public policy, a willingness to serve the public and the ability to learn local public administration issues PDQ.

I don't think the office of mayor and the city council seats are the same nor do I think they demand the same type of political candidate. One is an administrator or like our current mayor likes to call it, a CEO while the other one is influencing, adopting or amending public policy. Very different qualifications for very distinct political offices.

Pay attention to who is running and think about why they should have your vote. There is a lot going on in this city, important issues, and we need people who can see the forest in spite of trees. This council race is not about finding someone who will fight the current mayor or provide good theater. It's about good government and who is going to be an effective councilor instead of an individualist with a lone objective. The race is about to begin.

The Super Bowl Means Super Everything

2012-02-04T09:22:00.000-06:00

It is that time of year when the Super Bowl takes over the airways and the hearts and minds of a lot of Americans. Football is to the U.S. what Soccer is to the rest of the world. Even people who aren't really into football, get into the mania of the Super Bowl.

It is a marketing genius with unbelievably funny and creative commercials. Which is a feat in and of itself considering the fact that most people DVR programs these days just so they don't have to watch those endless commercials. If they can make them so funny on Super Bowl Sunday, why can't they make them this funny and entertaining the rest of the year?

It isn't just about football though.

It is about food.

It is about camaraderie with friends and family.

It is about the next big gathering after the big gathering during the holidays. However, it is the gathering that doesn't bring the same kind of anxiety that comes with shopping, spending too much money or not making it even steven with the grandchildren.

It is about shouting loud, big pats on the back, high fives and eating and drinking, and drinking and eating.

It's about getting together to watch a football game even if your team isn't in the game.

It's about watching the half time show, wondering if there will be a wardrobe malfunction.

It's about betting something if you are so inclined.

It's about watching the endless hype shows leading up to the big game.

It's about trying to decide who you are going to cheer for when your team has once again let you down for the umpteenth season but you know when the season comes back in the fall you will be right back as a loyal follower again.

It's about the pre-game show and all the stories about the players.

It's about an afternoon and evening in the warmth of your house or someone's house having fun and not having it cost you an arm and leg.

It's being thankful you are watching the fun extravaganza on a flat screen TV with a resolution that makes you feel like you can step right into the picture.

It's about the mad texting to your father after some unbelievable play or touchdown.

It's about hoping to see Betty White in another commercial this year. Who doesn't love Betty White?

It's about the anticipation of the new Pepsi commercial featuring Elton John.

It's about the two quarterbacks and wondering why is it that the quarterbacks are always the good looking guys on the team.

It's about hoping the owner of the winning team doesn't hog the trophy again this year.

It's wondering how they picked Indianapolis for the site of the Super Bowl this year even if it is indoors. I wonder if they would ever pick Minneapolis as a super bowl site if Minnesota promised to build the Minnesota Vikings a new stadium?

It's about the hope that the big game will be an exciting as the game between the San Fransisco 49'ers and the New Orleans Saints this year. Was that a game or what?

ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL?

Event Parking to Spill Over Into the Neighborhoods

2012-02-03T08:12:00.000-06:00

No one should be surprised that parking will spill over into the neighborhoods surrounding the proposed Event Center/Convention Center/Arena area. West Sioux residents were given the news at a planning and input meeting Tuesday night in preparation for the construction of the Event Center.

“But there’s no doubt, folks, if there’s a big huge event going on that is taking up all three buildings, that there is still going to be some parking around the streets,” said Mike Cooper, director of planing and building services.

We all knew that would happen though no one from the city actually came out and said it would happen. During the Event Center debate, there was plenty of discussion that parking was not sufficient if multiple events were held at this site. No one from the city refuted it. They just never addressed it.

If I lived in that area, I would not want all that traffic blocking my ability and the ability of my friends and family to park in front of my house or in my neighborhood. Can you just imagine the traffic and the noise that will spill into those neighborhoods and at all hours? The residents living in the neighborhoods surrounding the event center should start a petition drive to prohibit on-street parking in their residential areas between the hours of 6 p.m. to Midnight, seven days a week. Signs would be posted to prohibit parking during those hours.

I suppose this could spur the mayor and the public parking director to say we would need to build a parking ramp out there next to the Event Center. The ramp talk has been floating around for some time now.

Details, Details, Details. These pesky little details will continue to dribble out as the bonds are sold and the construction of the event center begins in earnest. The new tag line for the mayor's press conferences and news releases relating to the Event Center construction could be taken from a couple of well known songs - Musician Bobby McFerrin's "Don't Worry, Be Happy" or American Country Music Group SHeDaisy's "Don't Worry 'bout a Thing." A philosphy of denial.

New Parking Fee Policy not Downtown Friendly

2012-02-01T20:42:00.001-06:00

According to a KELO-TV report on January 26th, the city has expanded the hours they are charging customers. Customers used to pay to park in the ramp between 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. With the new automated upgrades to the 1st Avenue Ramp, the city expanded the hours they are charging customers to park from 8 a.m. to 6 a.m.

Isn't it interesting that the public finds out about the expanded hours for charging customers to park in the main downtown parking ramp through a local TV station? With all the press releases coming out of City Hall, you would have thought there would have been a new release telling the public of the new parking policy.

I wanted to see when the Public Parking Advisory Board passed this new policy so I went to the city's official website and looked for the minutes to the board meetings. The Community Development section lists the Public Parking Advisory Board and it states monthly meetings are scheduled the first Tuesday of the month at 8 a.m. at Carnegie Town Hall at 235 West Tenth Street.

The Board met nine times in 2009 and 12 times in 2010. It met consistently every month in 2011 through October 4, 2011, except for September when the meeting was cancelled. There are no meetings or minutes listed after the October 4, 2011 meeting. In the upcoming meeting dates section it says: Next meeting date(s) unavailable at this time. Please check back later....

In checking the meeting minutes listed on the website, there is nothing in the posted minutes regarding the advisory board approving the expanded hours to charge for parking in the 1st Avenue Ramp. So, what is the reason for this new policy? Is it to offset revenue shortfalls in the parking system? I thought the hourly parking fees didn't raise significant revenues and weren't something to be concerned about.

Back in December 2011, when the new automated parking system was still not operating and hourly customers were parking for free, City Director Darrin Smith said, "We wanted to make sure that, especially in the month of December that customers Downtown go shopping, visiting Downtown was as convenient as possible for them so we've allowed them to park in the ramp." He went on to say that the hourly parking only brought in $50 a day so the implication was it was not a big enough deal to worry about.

If hourly parking fees were not a big deal back in November and December and brought insignificant revenue, why expand the hours for hourly parking to include nighttime hours now? It is a negative increase against Downtown activity in the evening. Will free parking continue on the weekends or is this new policy of charging between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 a.m. seven days a week?

Did this new policy get reviewed by the Public Parking Advisory Board? It appears not since this Board has not met since October 2011. Where is the transparency in policy decisions promised by this mayor. This new parking policy affects the Downtown. Were the Downtown merchants told of this new policy change so they could respond to questions by their customers and patrons?

This is not a very good example of business acumen, Mr. Mayor! An explanation by the director responsible for public parking and oversight of the Public Parking Advisory Board and its inaction of late seems to be in order. This whole thing seems very strange and certainly does not appear to be an example of being Pro-Downtown as this Mayor professes!

Seeking Community Standard for Public Input

2012-01-31T10:39:00.000-06:00

At the Monday, January 30th Information Meeting, Sue Roust, Interim City Clerk, presented public input research she collected through contacting various jurisdictions used by the HR Department for salary benefit comparisons. Roust stated that Sioux Falls' community standards are towards much more openness and public input than most other places.

Public input standards usually relate to the following:

Requirement to sign up in advance.
Allowing public input on non-agenda items.
Allowing a response to a citizen comment/input.
When should public input be allowed on a public council meeting agenda?

As Roust said, Sioux Falls city government and the SF School District lean towards more openness and public input than most other jurisdictions she looked at in her research. Some jurisdictions require sign up before the meeting starts; one jurisdiction requires a citizen to fill out a request by Wednesday Noon before a Monday council meeting. Omaha, Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Bismark don't allow public input on non-agenda items. Sioux City allows public input at the end of their meeting. Cedar Rapids allows public input after a public hearing.

Councilor Jamison asked for information regarding Aberdeen and Rapid City which was left off the research because it was not on the HR comparability list. I went out and looked at these two websites.

The City of Aberdeen provides an open forum from 5:30 p.m. to 5:40 p.m. which occurs after the Proclamations and before the Consent Agenda approval. The rules for the Open Forum are printed right on the agenda. It says that the Open Forum provides an opportunity for the public to address the city council with concerns, questions or comments on items which are not on the agenda. They have sign up prior to the start of the meeting. A majority of the council can agree to extend the time period. Presentations cannot exceed two minutes in duration. The forum cannot be used to make personal attacks, air personality grievances or make political endorsements. It cannot be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to comments made.
The City of Rapid City allows for General Public Comment after the adoption of the agenda and presentation of awards and recognition and before the consent agenda. The official agenda states it is a time for members of the public to address or express concern to the council on any issue not on the agenda.

Conclusion? It depends on the community and the standards that jurisdiction wishes to impose on its citizenry. You can research jurisdictions all over the country and come up with variations on how local government handles public input. What is important is what level of open government do you want in this community? Elected officials, in my opinion, set standards on public input based on a tolerance scale. That is, their own tolerance scale. They can tolerate public input as long as it does not address a concern or criticism about their own actions.

Councilor Karsky stated he advocates looking at adjusting the public input standard and wants to put public input at the end of a council meeting because he is concerned about all those city employees and those who come to speak to a specific agenda item. Councilor Jamison stated it should be looked at to make it better. Councilor Rolfing asked the topic be sent to the next working sessions so they all could discuss it more fully.

When you start making rules to censure public input, you start down a path that is going to create controversy and dissent. It is a slippery slope fraught with charges of tampering with free speech and openness and transparency in government. The public input provision may make some elected officials uncomfortable. So what? When you become comfortable and no one is allowed to speak up and challenge an elected official is when democracy takes a back seat to good government.

What should be the community standard for public input? I think we have one already and as Interim City Clerk stated, our community standards are towards much more openness and public input than most other places. What is wrong with that?

A Contrite Charter Revision Commission-Sort Of

2012-01-30T12:42:00.001-06:00

The Charter Revision Commission met on Friday, January 27th. The most interesting part of the meeting was the public input and the commission responses. Commissioner Gregerson said at one point that while serving on a past CRC, they begged for input and never got it.

I submit to you that the public is more engaged in their city government goings on than ever before. We should probably thank the current mayor for that. He encourages public input with his ever present press releases and press conferences. The mayor is before the city council at many information meetings presenting his proposals and agendas. This mayor is in the forefront of city government with little public input or presentation by city directors. He is the main mouth piece of the executive branch and his demeanor and manner of speech encourages public input. His mere presence moves the public to engagement.

That being said, the public input at this latest CRC meeting had a general theme:

Encouragement to take the necessary time to research and discuss proposals before taking hasty action to put something on a ballot.
Transparency in government is a good thing and should always be the primary purpose of revisions to the city charter.
Premeditated use of Roberts Rules of Order to shut down public input is an abuse of power.
Balance of power and checks and balance between the executive branch and the legislative branch of government must be preserved at all cost.
Respect the people that come before this body.
Don't have time limits. If you only want to commit to one hour per meeting, do so with the understanding that you must have more meetings in order to discuss and research issues and proposals. In other words, take your time.

Commissioner Aanenson, who probably took more of the heat for his behavior at the last CRC meeting, felt the need to respond to citizen Andy Traub relating to his comments about political contributions and using Roberts Rules of Order to shut down public input. Commissioner Aanenson stated in part: "I would apologize to Mr. Jamison but when I'm asked to come on a commission and donate one hour of my time and the time is running into an hour and a half and I have previous engagements, and if it was meant that way and I know you are referring to me that I didn't mean to cut off Mr. Jamison, I just didn't have time for that meeting...."

Not much of an apology to Mr. Jamison. Let's remember he is Councilor Jamison, a duly elected member of the City Council whose standing should have demanded proper decorum from this commission than what he got. This was more like a justification for his behavior. He just didn't have time to waste on such matters. He's a busy man.

Then Commissioner Aanenson went on to attack the media for reporting on his donations to the mayor's campaign and he admonished them for not reporting the whole story. Commissioner Knudson became emotional and Commissioner Thimjon thought people jumped to conclusions. I am always of the opinion that if you have to spend time justifying your actions and making counter attacks, there is red meat in the background. Commissioner Gregerson just wanted to start over.

To Councilor Jamison's credit, he offered to remove four of his proposals from further consideration to help this group out. He never rose to their level of behavior and kept his cool both when he was dissed very publicly by this group and when he came before them again at this meeting. Always the professional, level headed and calm. Good traits for a public official.

To be fair, Commissioner Aanenson and the other commission members are citizens who volunteered for this public service and like everyone else who said it, we all thank them for their willingness to serve. But that being said, they have a duty and an obligation to LISTEN. I have to wonder what sort of orientation session these novices got before they held their first public meeting. It would appear they got nothing by their actions. Surely, the city attorney's office could have done a better job preparing them for their duties and responsibilities. Maybe we would have been spared the unprepared and not very professional behavior exhibited in the past.

This is not about them. This is not about whether they have time or not. This is not about their personal opinions or thoughts. Just because you talked about a proposal, doesn't mean you immediately look for a motion to put it on the ballot.This is about them taking public testimony and input regarding the city's charter and deciding through deliberate study and research what should be presented to the public in ballot form for amendment to the city's governing document.

This is not about them. We are talking about them, because of their inappropriate public policy behavior. We are talking about them because of their rush to get things done without proper thought and deliberation. We are talking about them because they don't know how to handle the business of a CRC and sometimes don't even understand their own motions and what they are voting on. No one caused this controversy but them. Justifications for political contributions is like trying to close the barn door after all the cows left the barn. It's too late. Insincere apologies because you are very busy and didn't have time is a personal problem and has no place in the important business of the Charter Revision Commission. Damage done.

The time is to move forward, hoping they all learned an important lesson. It's about doing the people's business. It's not about them. That means it's time to listen, take input, study, research, seek the advice of the city attorney, and draft language for ballot consideration either this year or in two years hence. So you got criticized, so what? That's what happens when you volunteer for a big, high profile job like this one. It's not about them and they need to get over themselves. And yes, they need to find time in order to do a good job.

The Legislature and Public Employees

2012-01-29T09:05:00.002-06:00

The South Dakota Legislature is not going to be any different than other Republican state legislatures in this country when it comes to attacking public employees. This state is a right-to-work state and has been for a long time. Unions don't have a foothold in this state except among public employees. Maybe that's because public employees have always been at the mercy of elected officials and historically have wages below a competitive private sector market. The legislature can get away with no raises for state employees because they are the largest employer in the state capital. Where else are all those people going to go work?

The employees working for the City of Sioux Falls did not organize until the late 70's and early 80's and organized because of certain employment practices. There were layoffs of general employees, and physical agility testing for firefighters that energized those public sector employees to petition to hold an election to be represented by a collective bargaining agreement.

Public employees in SD cannot strike. Public employees in SD do not have binding arbitration. I happen to agree with those two positions. I do not think it is in the public interest to allow public employees the right to strike. Nor do I think public employees should have the ability to go to binding arbitration in a labor dispute. An independent third party should not be able to obligate the taxpayers to any amount of money without the express approval of the elected body of the jurisdiction employing those public employees.

However, I do not have a problem with public employees having the right to unionize in SD. I have never been afraid of unions. I have always been of the mindset that private companies and yes, public sector employers usually get an organized effort to unionize when management does not treat their employees fairly or in good faith. Once a union gets into a workplace, it is very hard to decertify that union.

I have worked in a unionized setting as a management employee my entire professional career, both in the private sector and in the public sector. Did management and the unions always agree? No. Was it irritating at times to sit at the bargaining table and listen to what I believed were unreasonable demands. Yes, but there was a benefit to sitting at a bargaining table and discussing matters related to wages, hours and conditions of employment in good faith and there were many instances where we were able to find common ground. It is hard to find common ground when unilateral action is taken by an employer just because they can and employees have no ability to discuss issues relating to their employment conditions.

Let's be clear. In South Dakota, public employees do not have the right to negotiate their pension benefits. South Dakota law is clear on that subject. It is not a mandatory subject of bargaining. We are not like other states where pension benefits are a mandatory subject of bargaining. It is humorous that the legislature is proposing a new law that says the unions could still represent public employees, they just couldn't bargain for wages, hours, and benefits. What the heck is left to represent and bargain for?

The labor laws in this state still side with the employer. Where the two sides cannot come to an agreement, there is mediation conducted by the State. The public employer can still unilaterally implement a disputed labor contract. The labor laws are leaned towards the public employer.

To support taking the ability of public employees to sit down at the bargaining table in good faith to discuss issues and to negotiate for wages, hours and conditions of employment is simply not necessary in this state. All this proposed legislation is going to do is inflame and demean the very people who are for the majority dedicated public employees who work without notice and sometimes a non competitive wage to preserve the public safety and well being of it's citizens.

This proposed legislation is a waste of time in a state that has historically been hostile to a collective bargaining environment and has the laws on the books at the present time to prove it. Public employers still have the ability to say no and the unions in this state can't do anything about it. So, quite worrying about it by passing this unnecessary law. Another example of a legislature that can't see the forrest for the trees.

Why Neighborhood Associations Are a Good Thing

2012-01-27T19:42:00.000-06:00

Another neighborhood in Sioux Falls is in the beginning stages of organizing a neighborhood association. The Whittier, Pettigrew Heights and Cathedral neighborhoods are a good example of what can happen when local citizens come together to be proactive in their little neck of the woods.

Living in Virginia Beach, Virginia in my early adult years afforded me the opportunity to become active in my local area civic league. At one point, I was even elected an officer of my civic league. It was a powerful means for me to become familiar with my neighborhood and local government when I bought my own home. We elected officers and had an agenda for each meeting which usually included an invitation to some local public official to come speak regarding issues affecting the community and our neighborhood. The most important aspect of belonging to this organization was the ability to become engaged in my community. It meant volunteering and hard work but it was a most rewarding experience and it made me an involved citizen.

The idea of civil leagues or neighborhood associations is not new. The purpose of these groups is to provide a voice for citizens in their local government and neighborhoods. There is no better way for neighbors to meet one another on common ground to preserve the neighborhood peace and safety for their families and become engage in local government issues.

The city's planning department has played a significant role in the past in helping citizens realize their potential by engaging them in the betterment of their neighborhoods. The Whittier Neighborhood Association is a model for other neighborhoods in Sioux Falls to emulate.

City Councilor Vernon Brown hits the nail on the head - “There’s no better way to improve a neighborhood than when the homeowners take ownership of it,” he says. “It started with Whittier, and they created a great model for others.”

It would be a powerful thing to be strategically organized into neighborhood associations across this city. The city's Planning Department could be the lead facilitator in organizing this movement across the city. Assisting citizens in organizing neighborhood associations by establishing boundaries and identifying means of communication within an association is a proactive approach to civic responsibility and citizenship. I'd like to see this added to the mayor's top 10 projects and maybe see it appear on his Top 10 Accomplishments one year.

Engaged citizens mean an engaged and informed community. I congratulate the All Saints Neighborhood in their efforts to better their neighborhood and wanting to become active participants in their community. Neighborhood Associations are a good thing for Sioux Falls!!

Will We Ever See A Downtown Railroad Relocation?

2012-01-26T20:52:00.000-06:00

On July 5, 2011, the City Council was given a quarterly update on the Railroad Relocation Project. The timeline was set out as follows:

Over the next 90 days, city staff should be able to finalize the design work.
The next update is October 3.
Two public meetings will be held in November 2011 and May 2012.
The draft EA will be ready by January 2012 with the final review and approval by September 2012.
Construction in 2012-2014

The update to the city council on October 3, 2011 was verbal with no associated documents. The council was told there was no change to the feasible site alternatives to take into the environmental process. The staff was still looking at the Ellis Eastern site and the Southeast location. City staff continues with the evaluation stage working with the railroad on limits to the project. The environmental field survey work was completed in September 2011 with survey letters sent to affected property owners. They are working on a draft of the environmental assessment document. At this meeting, we heard new milestones:

Working on public outreach
Project Steering Committee Meeting scheduled in October 2011.
Project Consultant to give City Council an update in late November 2011.
Public Meeting to be held in late November 2011.
Draft EA to be completed sometime next year so the public can look at it.
Design phase cannot start until the EA document is completed.
Project website is updated at siouxfalls.org/railroad.

In other words, real substantial progress was not made in those 90 days from July until October 2011. Finalization of design work is no where near being done because the environmental assessment document draft is not yet completed. No decision has been made regarding the feasibility of the downtown main switching yard and the siding alternative to a new bridge over the Sioux River at the Falls . I could relate to Councilor Entenmen's comment at the October 2011 meeting where he asked for an updated timeline at the November 2011 update. Who's on first, who's on second?

Guess what? No update was given in November 2011. No public meeting was held in late November 2011. The city's website lists the following project milestones and schedule which is different than what was presented to the City Council in July and October 2011:

Milestones and Schedule

Federal Earmark Approved	January 2006
Environmental Assessment Started	May 2006
First Public Meeting	July 26, 2006
Second Public Meeting	January 17, 2007
Third Public Meeting	April 3,2008
Fourth Public Meeting	January 2012
Complete Draft Environmental Assessment Document	January 2012
Fifth Public Meeting	May 2012
Complete Final Environmental Assessment Document	September 2012
FHWA Approval of Environmental Assessment	September 2012
Design	2012 – 2013
Construction	2013 – 2014

Is there anyone on the City Council who is keeping track of this project and what is promised at the Council Information Meetings? Oh, I forgot. They fired their executive research staff person back in September 2011.

This project is mired in details and moving milestones. While the city muddles through the site alternatives and the environmental assessment and design work, the federal government will take their money earmarked for this project and put it towards the mounting and strangling federal debt because this earmark shows no real substantial progress since it was awarded in 2006.

Let's not forget that little tidbit dropped on the Council back in October 2011. There will probably be a need for additional funds above the federal earmark. Tack that on to the 2nd penny sales and use tax revenue as a future need and let it compete with street construction and maintenance needs and the Event Center debt repayment.

Will we ever see the completion of the railroad relocation project? It seems doubtful to me. Phases II and III are no where near being completed today than they were a year ago. The mayor may have accomplished his campaign goal to build an event center but his goal to complete the Railroad Relocation Project sure looks like it is heading towards a failure. And that will be his legacy too.

Mayor's Top Ten Accomplishments

2012-01-25T22:05:00.001-06:00

I like it when city government tells the good folks of Sioux Falls what they accomplished each year. Setting goals and objectives, which assists a management team to work towards achieving an end result is good "business acumen." If you read the city departments top 5 accomplishments, you can readily identify their accomplishments. You get to an accomplishment by identifying your goals and objectives.

Can you say the same thing when you read the mayor's top 10 accomplishments? The answer is no. These top ten statements are not statements of accomplishments. They are statements of hyperbole. Making a feel good statement about something is not a stated accomplishment.

Each department outlined their top 5 accomplishments for 2011. Why wouldn't the mayor look at those department accomplishments and pick what he believed to be the top 10 accomplishments for 2011 from their list of accomplishments?

A statement of accomplishment usually spells out the completion of something, a successful performance of something specific, a fulfillment of an objective, the attainment of a goal. It is a specific statement of achievement of a goal/objective. All that business acumen and you get a top ten list of grandiose, feel good statements. What we got from the Mayor's Top Ten Accomplishments was a generic list of feel good statements.

Here is but one example of the hyperbole in the mayor's press conference - Our city’s heartbeat is pumping stronger. Downtown Sioux Falls is on the move. What was done to make the city's heartbeat pump stronger? What has been achieved to prove the statement, Downtown Sioux Falls is on the move? What the heck does this statement mean? It sure isn't a statement of a specific performance based action.

Broad statements with no specific performance achievements are not accomplishments. A statement that "our people care" is not an accomplishment. Our foundation is rock solid is not a performance based statement of fact. Good grief, where is all that business acumen that is supposed to be self evident.

Each city department has made significant accomplishments towards their goals and objectives. Congratulations to them for their hard work and their performance. They are the ones who accomplished much as is evidenced by their statements of achievement. The directors, at least, have the business acumen and understanding of how to quantify an accomplishment.

I did not see one statement on the Mayor's list that he can list as his top accomplishment as mayor. This list is stupid and not worthy from the office of a mayor. A lot of fluff and no substance behind the verbose speech and big smile.

The Balance of Power

2012-01-23T00:35:00.000-06:00

The constant fight over the role of the mayor and the role of the city council is an old fight started back in 1995. Each mayor has chafed against a city council who has wanted to be more involved in the administration of city government than the city charter allows.

When the new form of government was effective in 1995, the city attorney held many training/educational sessions on the city charter and the roles of government. When a new councilor took office, orientation sessions were held giving newly elected officials background and history regarding this new form of government.

As years progressed, people left and orientation sessions regarding the city charter and the mayor and council roles went by the wayside. Pretty soon, the "old" experts on the city charter were gone and everyone was pretty much left to their own ideas on who should be doing what and what the roles of the mayor and the city council should be.

Over the years, the city council has crept into the executive and administrative role of the mayor. It is easy for people to bicker about the roles government by engaging in the personalities of mayors and city councilors when those personalities lend to the debate. But when we allow personalities into the debate, it clouds what the city charter says each branch of government should be responsible for. When the mayor and councilors cannot get along, that dislike or irritation flows over into the roles of each branch of government and pushes one branch to create ordinances to encroach on the powers of the other branch.

That's what has been happening since this form of government took effect in 1995 and it will probably continue to be an ongoing source of discontentment and encroachment of power.

The city charter is clear.

Section 2.01. General powers and duties.

All powers of the city shall be vested in the city council, except as otherwise provided by law or this charter, and the council shall provide for the exercise thereof and for the performance of all duties and obligations imposed on the city by law. The council shall act as a part-time, policy making and legislative body, avoiding management and administrative issues.

Section 3.01. Executive power.

The executive and administrative power of the city shall be vested in a mayor.

The mayor oversees the employees. The council establishes a personnel system by ordinance. The mayor prepares the budget. The council holds public hearings on the budget and approves the budget by ordinance. The mayor prepares the 5 year capital program and the council approves the capital program. The council approves the appropriations for the budget. The council has the authority to amend the budget and the appropriations. In other words, the council has the purse strings. The council has the final say on taxpayer money and how it should be spent. It says so in the city charter.

But the council wants to get involved in the day to day business - the management and administrative side of the city government. So says, the mayors. And so the arguments and the grabs for power continue.

The city council has certainly expanded it's branch of government far beyond the "part-time, policy making and legislative body, avoiding management and administrative issues" by creating an administrative department of their own. They have added staff beyond the "city clerk" operation of managing the official records of the city. The council has created an Audit division of 3 employees, a budget analyst and now a legislative and operations manager. They now have executive and administrative power of various appointive and civil service employees of their own. The question is, does the city charter allow for this expansion of power?

The city attorney, as the legal officer of the city is the true gatekeeper. If the city attorney sides with the mayor, the council says the city attorney is in the pocket of the mayor. If the city attorney were to side with the council, the mayor would view it as betrayal. Yet, it is the city attorney who carries the ultimate authority regarding the power roles of each branch of local government. And if the city attorney cannot be neutral or unbiased and preserve and interpret the general powers and duties of the city council and the executive power of mayor, then you will have the continued bickering about the power roles of the mayor and the city council.

Both branches of government are guilty of mudding up the city charter and wanting the language to change to better empower their positions. The power to govern is already there. Instead of trying to grab more power, both branches need to just do their job as the citizens elected them to do and quite coveting the other's power.

It's a balance of power. The City Charter recognizes the balance of power. I wish the elected officials would do the same and the city attorney would do his job.

City Council's New Organization Structure

2012-01-20T12:22:00.000-06:00

The City Council has been working on their organization structure since they fired Debra Owen back in September 2011. The council formed an ad hoc committee in November 2011 to decide what they wanted their city clerk position to be. I wrote two blogs on the subject in September and November 2011 suggesting that maybe it was time to finally create two very distinct positions.

Vice Chair Erpenbach presented the new organization structure under the emergency clause of ordinance 2-15 at the Tuesday, January 17, 2012 council meeting. The current organization reflected Owen's old position of City Clerk/Chief of Council Operations and 3 Assistant City Clerks. The new organization will have a new position titled Legislative and Operations Manager, a City Clerk position, and 2 Assistant City Clerks.

The rationale for creating two positions from Owen's position at the time of her firing was that the City Clerk serves the entire city and they wanted it to be a neutral position, an apolitical position. The new position titled Legislative and Operations Manager would specifically serve the 8 councilors. Councilors need someone to bounce ideas off of, someone to do their research, set up meetings and run the day to day operations of the council office.

Having two separate and distinct positions is not a brand new idea. It was being discussed as an option back when I was still working for the city. If you talk to Owen, she was also working on the concept. It is not a new idea but it is a good idea, in my opinion, and it is finally being adopted. How it was adopted is another story (see January 19th blog). Maybe now, the council can keep the mayor out of their day-to-day council business and the City Clerk position will truly be a neutral administrative position serving both the council and the mayor's administration. Too bad it wasn't done when Owen was still there. She might not have lost her job to political circumstances.

Councilor Erpenbach's committee also created another council committee called Operations Committee made up of the Council Chair, Vice Chair, immediate past Chair and another councilor approved by the city council. This committee will oversee these positions and incumbents and the day to day operations of the council office. As a part-time council, this will continue to be a challenge especially since by charter the council is only supposed to be a part-time, policy making and legislative body.

Erpenbach said the two positions would be posted and applications would be taken from both inside and outside city government. The mayor congratulated Erpenbach on not adding to their headcount. An interesting comment considering there are currently 3 Assistant City Clerk incumbents. Either one of those 3 is predisposed to getting promoted to the appointive City Clerk position or one of them is going to be fired or laid off since the new organization only allows for 2 Assistant City Clerks.

Rumor has it that the mayor is working on changing ordinance language in Chapter 30 pertaining to personnel rules and regulations related to appointive officials and employees. Current ordinance language specifically allows appointed officials who have previous civil service to "bump back" if they become unappointed by a mayor and/or city council. Of course, this language amendment would require a majority vote of the city council.

Why any of these civil service assistant clerks would take the city clerk position with the prospect of losing the ability to bump back when they lose favor with the mayor or the council is beyond me. All they have to do is look at the "special" way the mayor and city council chose to treat Debra Owen. Then ask yourself why you would leave civil service to work for this group. Every day is a wing and a prayer regarding job security.

New Council Organization an Emergency?

2012-01-20T11:38:00.000-06:00

At the Tuesday, January 17th City Council meeting, three agenda items were walked in by the City Council leadership. The three agenda items walked into the meeting were:

Agenda Item 21 which was 1st reading of an ordinance to amend the campaign finance laws.
Agenda Item 22 which was a resolution to create a new position titled Legislative Operations Manager and establishing a salary range of $2,292.80 to $3,300.00 bi-weekly.
Agenda Item 23 which was a resolution revising the position of City Clerk with a salary range of $1,936 to $2,727.20 bi-weekly.

It is interesting to note that Agenda Item 21 was actually listed on the regular agenda along with the ordinance language document for public view. However, the Regular Agenda did not list Agenda Items 22 and 23, nor were the resolutions on the city's website for view by the public. Council Vice Chair Erpenbach made a motion to add these three agenda items to the regular agenda and Council Chair Aquilar seconded the motion. In order to act on the immediate action by Councilors Erpenbach and Aquilar, the action required an affirmative vote of at least 6 councilors. Everyone present voted yes.

Agenda Item 21 addressing changes to the campaign finance laws was vetted by Interim City Clerk, Sue Roust, at the January 9th Public Services Committee meeting . She publicly requested that the ordinance amendment be carried in after the deadline and gave her rationale for requesting the immediate consideration of the ordinance amendment. The Public Services Committee approved the action to carry it in at the January 17th meeting. There was no discussion of the Council Reorganization or carrying in agenda items creating a new council position or revising the current city clerk position at that meeting. There was no motion by the Public Services Committee to walk in Agenda Items 22 and 23.

Below is city ordinance language that speaks to agenda submissions and deadlines. The submission requirements are necessary to meet open meeting laws and public notice requirements.

Sec. 2-15. Agenda. (a) All reports, communications, ordinances, resolutions, or other matters to be submitted to the council for consideration shall be delivered to the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 a.m. on the Monday one week prior to the council meeting. If the Monday one week prior to the city council meeting is a holiday, the deadline is 10:00 a.m. on the preceding Friday. All documentation requiring council action will be delivered to the city clerk's office in its complete and final format. The city clerk's office shall prepare the agenda in both paper and electronic format and will furnish each member of the council, the mayor, and the city attorney with access to the information after 1:00 p.m. on the Wednesday prior to the city council meeting.

(b) During consideration of new business, the mayor or any two city council members may bring before the city council any business that person feels should be deliberated upon by the city council. These matters can be added to the agenda by a vote of six city council members and will be considered under new business. Formal action on such matters shall be deferred until a subsequent city council meeting, unless consideration is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety of the municipal government. If the city council chooses to take immediate action on the newly calendared agenda item, and notice to the public is provided as set forth in SDCL 1-25-1.1, an affirmative vote of six members of the council is required for approval.
(Ord. No. 50-95, § 2, 3-20-95; Ord. No. 52-11, § 10, 7-11-11)

Why did the Council Vice Chair and Council Chair carry in Agenda Items 22 and 23 relating to the Council Organization? Certainly the consideration of these two items do not rise to the level necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety of the municipal government. Yet, the council chose to take immediate action on these two council positions at the meeting on January 17th in spite of this ordinance requirement and no public notice.

The city council had just revised ordinance 2-15 back in July, 2011 to stop this kind of thing from happening. It went through the Public Services Committee which sent the revision to the City Council for adoption. Now, it seems, the council is breaking their own rules of law.

It is preposterous to think creating a new council position and revising a current job description was an emergency. This action was not vetted properly through their own committee structure and it violated their agenda ordinance language. It seems they can't even follow their own rules and begs the question what else don't they follow?

Open meeting laws and public disclosure and notice requirements are not supposed to become cavalier or a sometime rule. The Council leadership and the rest of the council just proved that anything goes when you want to get something done. Pretend it is an emergency and hope no one notices.

Is this good government?

Listening to the Public Gets A Little Tiring

2012-01-19T00:30:00.000-06:00

What the heck is going on with city government these days? Change with a capital C. I actually like change. I believe in change. But and there is a big BUT, change to further one's agenda, to stifle or restrict public input or access is change we don't need and is not good public policy. Change needs to be well thought out, researched, debated, public input, reviewed AGAIN and AGAIN, before change affecting public policy is adopted.

What we have seen this past month or so is proposed change that appears to be knee jerk reactions to noisy and persistent citizens and irritating councilor actions. When public officials take things too personally, you start getting ineffective change that makes for poor public policy. This mayor and council is like a perfect storm of reaction and counter reaction instead of effective, thoughtful and meaningful public policy.

Being in the public eye is not always comfortable. It's not always high five moments, clapping in adulation over how wonderful one is, kudoos for a job well done. Being in politics can get tiring and sometimes, one's feelings can get hurt. Scrutiny about everything one does and what one says sees the light of day and is commented on. That's why holding public office means you are in the public eye - all the time!

At the end of the January 9th City Council meeting, the mayor passed the gavel to the council chair so he could personally address citizens who stood up and gave public input at the beginning of the meeting. It appears the mayor forgot about the language his city attorney proposed to the city council and he approved as an agenda item for consideration and adoption regarding Chapter 2 of the city ordinances. The proposed ordinance language relating to addressing the council, which was deferred until after the election, states:

Section 2-16. Addressing the council; time limit.

(a) During the public input portion at the start of a city council meeting, no person shall be permitted to speak on a topic that appears later in that meeting's agenda if public input will be received when that agenda item is up for discussion. During public input, city council members are not permitted to engage in a dialogue or discussion with the presenter.

When asked about what happened at the January 9th council meeting, the mayor said:

“When you do have to moderate these functions, they basically want you to bite your tongue the four years you’re here,” he said. “I think the people of Sioux Falls understand that you can only bite your tongue for so long.”

Really? What is public input for if it is not a time to allow a citizen an unfettered, uncensored time to address the city council on any issue. Biting one's tongue during or after public input at a council meeting is exactly what a public official needs to do. No matter how irritating or tiresome that public input may be. After all, the mayor and the city council have all the advantages of public comment. They have the bully pulpit ad infinitum.

So, when things get tough, or you don't like something that is happening to you, propose a change. So how about changing the public input from the beginning of the council meeting to the end of the council meeting. Yes, that's the ticket! Let's punish those tiresome citizens who want to have a little say in their local government and make them sit through the entire council meeting. When will the ridiculous proposals of change ever end down at City Hall and Carnegie Town Hall?

When asked to comment about changing when the public can address the council, here is what the mayor said:

..........Huether said it’s up to councilors because the meetings are theirs. And while he said he “loves” that the community can have dialogue with its officials, it can get old.

“However, listening to the same dialogue every Monday, it does get a little tiring,” he said. “But it is a democracy, and as long as they are fair and professional and, I guess, respectful, the people have a right.”

That's right, it is a democracy. As a public official, whether you find it tiresome or a little old, it is your job to bite your tongue and let the citizen have a little public input. That's why it is called public input. When public input from a citizen becomes a little tiring and gets old is the time for you step down as a public official because you have forgotten that it is not about you. If you don't like the heat of public scrutiny, input and debate, then get out of the kitchen of political office. It is about democracy!

Mayor/Council Roles - Then and Now

2012-01-18T00:35:00.000-06:00

Joe Kirby was one of the original authors of the City Charter drafted in 1994. He and others spoke to numerous service groups to sell the idea of a change in the form of government from a full-time commission to a mayor/council form of government.

Kirby proposed changing the executive powers language in Section 3 of the City Charter citing the recent action by the city council to require all contracts be approved by the city council as evidence that the city council was moving into the mayor's administrative duties under the charter. The language he proposed to the Charter Revision Commission and which the CRC approved unanimously at their January 4, 2012 meeting is as follows (new additional language is underlined):

Section 3.01 Executive Power.

The executive and administrative power of the city shall be vested in a mayor. The mayor's executive and administrative power shall include, but not be limited to the following: appointing directors, hiring employees, supervising staff, disciplining employees, terminating employees, negotiating and awarding contracts, supervising the delivery of services, administration of the budget, administration of the Capital Plan, preparing the budget, preparing the Capital Plan, assignment of duties and responsibilities of staff, and enforcement of city ordinances.

Here is the summary presented in those Kirby dog and pony shows back in 1994:

Isn't it interesting that back "then," Kirby's side by side comparison stated that the council acts as an independent control over those who spend?

So, why add all this language that now includes the language "negotiating and approving contracts?" Especially after the council took official action to approve contracts against the position of the mayor.

It sure seems a little suspect that Mr. Kirby pops back up right after the city council acts to approve contracts at a regularly scheduled city council meeting to push the mayor's agenda which was is in disagreement with the city council.

Joe Kirby's then and now - why now?

Pleading Ignorance and Unawareness

2012-01-17T10:23:00.000-06:00

Pleading ignorance about the goings on of the Charter Revision Commission.

Unaware of who contributed to his campaign until a reporter told him.

Unaware of what language related to city ordinance is drafted by his city attorney.

Pleading ignorance from a person who said he has a google alert on his own name.

Pleading ignorance when actually recruiting people to serve on city boards and commissions.

Pleading ignorance about what the Charter Revision Commission is doing when he stated on the December ASK THE MAYOR program the Charter Revision Commission should look at the roles of the mayor and the executive branch and the city council and the legislative branch.

Pleading ignorance and being unaware is hard believe from a person who is so totally engaged and immersed in the job of mayor of this great city. Not being aware of what is being drafted out of the city attorney's office is not being engaged in the legal affairs of the city.

Pleading ignorance and being unaware are two phrases that are not descriptive of this mayor. So why plead ignorance or say one is unaware? When you don't want to be accountable for one's actions.

The ARGUS LEADER's Big Announcement

2012-01-15T12:31:00.003-06:00

I have always loved to read a newspaper. No matter where I traveled, I would pick up the local newspaper to get a pulse on community and local government issues.

I read with interest the ARGUS LEADER's announcement from Publisher Randall Beck that the shift to their new subscription model is based on the principle - The high-quality content created by our exceptional journalists informs, inspires and entertains in ways nobody else can match. And our pledge, in this fast-paced world, is to deliver that powerful journalism seamlessly across multiple platforms — web, mobile, tablet and your choice of print frequency.

The backbone of this effort, months in the making, has been a rethinking of, and reinvestment in, our news coverage — not only the issues we cover, but when, how and where we cover them.

I guess the backbone of the effort to move towards this change of rethinking and reinventing in news coverage included the forced furloughs of the very reporters who write the news and are the backbone of any newspaper.

As I have said before, I understand the shift to charging for digital access. Newspapers across the country have to rethink and retool their business model. However, when I pay for digital access, I expect quality reporting and extensive news coverage. I subscribe to various news sources and enjoy the ability to get digital access on my iPad and iPhone on the go. But I subscribe with choice based on value on the news content of the subscription.

Publisher Beck goes on to say: Ours, however, is unique in the industry because it begins with the fact that our newsroom — representing the largest and best team of journalists in the state and region — produces the best local content that is delivered where, how and when you want it. Nobody else does that.

The very news Publisher Beck is talking about must be different and more compelling than what I can get from local television news, city's website, and other national news sources. Why not highlight the paper's political reporter, Jonathan Ellis or local government reporter Megan Luther. Sports Editor Stu Whitney's perspective on the local scene is not going to cut it for me. He's the best the paper has to offer in the new change?

Time will tell if the Argus Leader Media Publisher and President Beck and Executive Editor Maricarrol Kueter will make good on the promise to provide the valuable watchdog journalism and investigative reporting that you have come to expect.

I hope they provide the reading public a grace period to see if, in fact, they are capable of producing "valuable watchdog journalism" and "investigative reporting." Let's see if that 800 customer service number has received attention as well since it has been a past exercise in futility and frustration. I am not ready to plunk down my credit card just yet.

An Interesting Way to Run the People's Business

2012-01-13T12:19:00.000-06:00

The mayor and his administration and the Charter Revision Commission have been busy proposing sweeping changes to various policies and ordinances of the city. Numerous important proposed changes are before the Public Services Committee regarding the ethics ordinances in City Ordinance Chapter 12 1/2, city council organization and procedures in City Ordinance Chapter 2, fraud policies coming out of the Audit Committee, recodification of ordinances, etc.

There is a another ordinance revision up for consideration at the City Council meeting on Monday, January 17th. The first reading pertains to revisions of Chapter 14 relating to campaign finance for municipal elections. This ordinance amendment was first on the January 9th Public Services Committee agenda. Interim City Clerk Roust stated some of the pieces of this ordinance were just given to the committee at this meeting (relating to the proposed ethics and fraud ordinance and policy) so the councilors on this committee never had to chance to review those fraud/ethics provisions added to this new ordinance revision in advance.

Roust stated that these changes would hit during an election cycle "which is a bit troubling" but went on to talk about the rush to get this on the Council Agenda the following week as a walk in. When concern was expressed by Councilors Anderson and Brown regarding the rush to pass, City Attorney Pfeifle informed them the current ordinances were unconstitutional due to a recent Supreme Court Decision. The concerns folded like a house of cards.

Why would you bring sweeping changing to campaign finance laws months before a city election? From what I am told, the last time changes were made to the campaign finance ordinances, it took the Public Services Committee months to review the changes and to hear public input. Those changes were considered six months or more before any election took place. Interim City Clerk Roust said unfortunately its the 1st time she has been able to look at it. City Attorney Pfeifle said the committee needed to take advantage of Roust's extensive expertise in election matters at the county while they can.

The campaign financing ordinance amendments will have 2nd reading on February 6th and after publication and 20 days will become effective on March 1st. However, candidates can begin to take out petitions for the city council race beginning January 27th. The deadline to submit those petitions is February 24th.

Councilor Brown is term limited, but Councilors Anderson, Karsky and Jamison will probably be running for a seat in the April election. They will be now asked to vote on sweeping changes to the campaign finance ordinance when they will actually be part of the petition process. When asked if it was conflict of interest, City Attorney Pfeifle said no. Does that really pass the smell test? The City Attorney may not have a problem with it but from a perception standard, it should certainly raise eyebrows.

I guess all one has to do is throw out the scare of unconstitutionality to get something on the city council agenda that has had no public input in committee and has had no real study by the Public Services Committee.

It is an interesting way to run the people's business.

Who Told Who What When

2012-01-12T10:27:00.000-06:00

I don't know about you but there seems to be something stinky going on about who told who what when. On January 5th, KELOLAND TV ran a story on Charter Revision Commission working to define and expand the mayor's executive powers.

Excerpts from that story:

The Charter Revision Commission is a mayor-appointed citizen board who began meeting last month. The group is charged with submitting suggestions to change the city's governing document. But a recent decision that defines and expands the mayor's executive power took the city council by surprise.

“I am horribly disappointed,” Sioux Falls City Council Vice-Chair Michelle Erpenbach said. “Horribly disappointed in what happened. And I am not the only council member saying that at this point.”

“You've got good people on those committees, on these public boards, and you let them do their work and serve the public as best they can,” Sioux Falls Mayor Mike Huether said.

Huether said that's what he's been doing since he appointed the board, and he had no part in the committee's decision.

He may not have a part in the committee's decision, but that doesn't mean that he hasn't given them his input. Like I have said in previous blogs regarding this charter revision commission debacle, it is hard to believe that the mayor has not talked to anyone about his thoughts on the mayor's executive powers.

Lo and behold, he actually talked about the work of this very commission in the December Ask The Mayor segment. When a comment was made that there was lots of opportunity for public input, the mayor said, "They can speak and let their voices be heard." Obviously, that word did not get out to Aanenson and his fellow commissioners when they closed Councilor Jamison down from providing public input.

The moderator asked, "Anything specifically from you as mayor that you want to see changed in the charter?" The mayor responded as follows: "Oh boy, you know, I do think that we do probably need to look at those roles and responsibilities of not only the mayor and the executive branch but yes, the council and the legislative branch as well. I think that if they could look at that even more that's an important thing, but ultimately it's not going to be me that decides. We've seen over the years how maybe there's been some issues that should be looked at again."

Who told who what when? Who is in the driver's seat? You be the judge.

Absent Reporters Means Absent News

2012-01-12T00:11:00.000-06:00

Councilor Brown made an astute observation after the ARGUS LEADER came out with an editorial about the city's proposed sale of Slip Up Creek land. This is what Councilor Brown posted online on the ARGUS LEADER editorial:

I agree with the editorial. However, if the Argus Leader had bothered to send a reporter to last night's meeting, it would know Public Works Director Mark Cotter asked for this item to be pulled. The Council voted unanimously to table the issue.

The City Council had two major pieces of legislation on their agenda Monday night (January 9th). One was an ordinance changing the day when council meetings are held along with other council procedure changes. The other ordinance was the push to sell the Slip Up Creek land. Both actions have been covered in past AL articles and both have become controversial. Both items were deferred or withdrawn until a later date.

Unfortunately, the ARGUS LEADER couldn't send their political reporter, Jonathan Ellis, to the meeting Monday night because he is on a week long forced unpaid furlough mandated by the paper. I guess there weren't any other reporters handy to cover the news of the city. So, the business lights of reporting the news goes dark.

The largest newspaper in the state of South Dakota and it is furloughing its reporter staff one by one. And they wonder why they are losing readership.

The City's Top 10 List

2012-01-11T08:54:00.003-06:00

I have to give this mayor credit when credit is due. He knows how to play the publicity game at City Hall. There has never been a mayor who has pushed out more press releases on everyday business goings on like he does on a daily basis. That is not a bad thing as long as the steady stream of pablum from 9th Street is interesting and informative. And sometimes it is and sometimes it is pablum.

On January 3, 2012, the mayor's special projects coordinator presented the city's top 10 project list to the city council. She stated this list was not all inclusive as there were many projects she was tracking as well as projects the departments were doing on their own. What was interesting, at the conclusion of the presentation, there was nary a question regarding these projects. The only question was would the coordinator be back for updates or would the information be posted online.

Projects on the "Top 10 List" that we haven't heard a lot about at City Council Information Briefings are the Health Department initiative to push forward a plan to reduce community heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes by 5%; the Pension Plan project to reduce the city's contributions rates by reducing the employee pension benefits; or the new software projects related to finance, land management integration and online plan review & work flow. All the other "top 10" projects have been on the information radar for quite some time.

Project management was happening long before the mayor's special projects coordinator came on board. The Engineering Division of Public Works is the master on project management. . Major projects "sponsored" by various departments with departmental "project managers" have always existed in city administrations. The directors and management staff have always performed project management duties. So let's not start beating the drums of mayoral accomplishments at business acumen again. Project plans, summaries, milestones, risk planning process, dependency planning process, project sponsor, project manager - all fancy terminology to show something new is happening down at City Hall when it's really not new at all.

I looked for the Top 10 Project List on the city's website but it is not posted yet. It probably has something to do with that "outdated software" issue. Personally, I like the fact that I will be able to go online and track progress on major projects in the city at one location on the city's website. That's what's new. What's not new is project management where directors and former mayor's used their Chief of Staffs to do the same thing internally.

Regular Joes

2012-01-09T22:19:00.000-06:00

How nice of the mayor to make sure "regular joes" are appointed to the various boards and commissions. I am not sure "regular joes" should be appointed to some boards/commissions. Some of these boards/commissions are highly technical and need people with knowledge, background and experience in the area the board oversees in order to serve with distinction. It is dangerous to put people on boards/commissions with no expertise or credible knowledge in a specific area.

The mayor went to great length to call out ordinary citizen Tim Stanga for his public input at the City Council meeting on January 9th. The mayor said it was "incredibly unfair to say its not an open process. It is true this mayor has made aggressive efforts to advertise openings on various city boards and commissions through press releases and advertisements in the local newspaper.

However, the mayor is the one who still reviews the applications and decides who to recommend for appointment. When I retired from city government service, I wanted to give back to the city by volunteering my time to serve on two boards that I felt I could provide credible and knowledgeable service. I immediately put in applications to serve on one of the two pension boards and the charter revision commission. I have never received so much as a letter or contact of interest regarding my applications. I also know of others who would have been credible and knowledgeable volunteers for the Charter Revision Commission who were also not contacted by the mayor's office.

Incredibly fair? Unbiased appointments? I think not. I do not view the current membership of the Charter Revision Commission as "regular joes." Two have political ties to the mayor. Two have professional contracts with the City of Sioux Falls and do business and receive remuneration from the city.

I would like to see the mayor publicly identify the criteria he uses to identify and evaluate the "regular joes" he recommends for appointment to city boards and commissions. What criteria does the city council use when they give their advice and consent to the mayor's appointments? It appears it is just a rubber stamp process.

Andy Traub said it best at the city council meeting on January 9th. Parliamentary procedure should not be used to stifle public input and submission of proposals to the Charter Revision Commission. Why didn't the City Attorney speak up and advise the Commission that they were acting inappropriately by silencing the voice of a city councilor? Councilor Jamison was treated with great disrespect by Commission member Aanenson. Commission member Thimjon seconded his blatent misuse of parlimentary procedure to silence Councilor Jamison. The other members followed like sheep.

Councilor Entenmen is right - people who serve on city boards and commissions should be commended for their volunteerism and service to the community. However, board/commission members do not deserve recognition and commendation when they act to circumvent free speech and stifle public input by using parliamentary procedure in such an irresponsible and highly suspect manner.

Words are cheap. It's one's actions and how they conduct themselves in the public eye that establishes credibility. The current Charter Revision Commission has lost credibility by their actions. Frankly, I think this Commission should be disbanded or the members should resign and the Mayor and City Council should reappoint a brand new Charter Revision Commission.

Rush to Amend

2012-01-07T10:00:00.000-06:00

Why is the Charter Revision Commission on such a fast track to get charter amendments ready for a public vote in April 2012? Maybe it's because this latest charter revision commission wasn't appointed until late 2011 and there is an agenda.

City Charter establishes a charter revision commission for purpose of proposing amendments to the charter. City Ordinance outlines the commission's duties. Chapter 2, Section 41 of the city code of ordinances says the following:

Sec. 2-41. Duties; public meetings.

The commission may deliver a report to the city election authorities framing and proposing amendments to the Sioux Falls Home Rule Charter which it deems advisable. The commission shall hold at least one public meeting each calendar year for the purpose of receiving recommendations from the public regarding revisions to the charter and to take action upon any matters before the commission relating to proposed charter revisions.

Charter Revision Commission members are appointed by the mayor, upon advice and consent of the city council. They serve 3 year terms. That usually means that the current mayor gets the opportunity to appoint a new commission every new mayoral term. It is something that just needs to get done procedurally.

The last Charter Revision Commission member terms expired June 2010. In spite of what is directed in the charter, this mayor did not appoint a Charter Revision Commission until late 2011 forcing a very fast timeline to get anything on the spring 2012 ballot. That's not to say that something needs to be on the Spring 2012 ballot. This commission has a lot of proposals before them and they seem hell bent on getting these proposals on the April 2012 ballot with little to no public discussion.

According to the 2010 Annual Report, the previous commission, which was appointed in 2007 by former mayor Dave Munson, held 4 meetings in 2008, 5 meetings in 2009 and 4 meetings in 2010. The commission delivered 2 proposed revisions to city election officials for the April 13, 2010 ballot.

Previously, voters have approved revisions to the city charter in 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008. So why the rush to get all these proposals on the April 2012 ballot without a meaningful study and public discussion? Why the rush to amend? Shouldn't amendments to the charter take time to study, discuss, and research all the implications of the changes? Why rush to put these latest amendments on the ballot after only two shallow meetings where no substantive discussion took place? The ink on their appointment to this commission is barely dry.

Commission member Gregerson is right when he says there is a concern that there may be too many amendments on the ballot which will just confuse the voters. This commission has until October 2014 to study the charter and make recommendations for revisions.

At least two of the current commission members are known "contributors" of the mayor. Thimjon and Aanenson certainly showed their "home team colors" at the January 4th commission meeting. The Charter Revision Commission should be made up of members whose agenda is good government, not to promote the agenda of a political crony. Their water carrying antics were so transparent we all got wet.

What we saw on January 4th, was political cronyism and payback and unsatisfactory performance by a supposedly neutral charter revision commission. Poletes, Knudson and Gregerson need to get some you know what or this entire commission will go down as one of the most outrageous and politically motivated commissions yet.

We Have Enough Water - At the Moment.

2012-01-06T08:39:00.000-06:00

Once again, we see that the current Administration is not into long term planning. The latest short term sightedness is illustrated in their agenda to sell land the city has been methodically planning and buying for the past several decades. The administration wants to sell the Slip Up Creek watershed northeast of Sioux Falls.

Water solutions are not for short time thinking. There are certain things in managing city government infrastructure needs that take a long term vision. Shape Sioux Falls 2035 is a comprehensive plan adopted by the City Council on December 7, 2009 with policies that help guide future ordinances, budgets and master plans. This is what the plan says about the Slip Up Creek Growth Area:

At one point, Slip Up Creek was identified as a future reservoir area for City water needs. However, following the emergence of the Lewis and Clark water project, the reservoir is no longer being considered for that purpose. Instead, the Slip Up Creek area should be preserved as a rural agricultural area. In the later half of the growth horizon, the southern section of the growth area will urbanize. The Slip Up Creek floodplain area should be protected, and existing City-owned parcels in the floodplain should be preserved as flooding buffer and future park area.

So, why sell the land now? Well, for one thing, that land will bring in $2.4 million dollars to go back into the water fund to help the water rates. Short term thinking. How do we know that the money from this sale won't be used to deal with the water issues at the event center construction site? Once sold, gone forever. Once put into the water fund, spent forever. I have an extended family of farmers who say never sell the land.

I agree with former mayor Gary Hanson when he says the city is making a mistake giving up on Slip Up Creek. Why even the city's own comprehensive plan says the existing city-owned parcels in the floodplain should be preserved as flooding buffer and future park area. Once that land is sold, it is gone forever. Land is gold and holds the future to this city. Think of the long term uses for this land. A possible reservoir for recreational use? Forward quality of life thinking for this community.

But it appears this administration lives in the moment. At the moment, selling the land means dollar signs and using it for short term water rate relief is an "in the moment" mentality. I hope the City Council has some sense to stop this proposed sale.

Charter Revision Commission

2012-01-04T17:24:00.001-06:00

The Charter Revision Commission met on January 4th. Charter Revision proposals have been submitted by the City Attorney, the Director of Finance, out of town citizen Joe Kirby, and Councilor Jamison.

This was a painful meeting to watch. The chair does not appear to understand or know anything about parliamentary procedure and the City Clerk and City Attorney didn't do anything at the beginning of this meeting to help clarify how this process should work. Interim Clerk Roust finally spoke up but, my goodness, this was like watching water boil. Painful lapses of silence, tentative direction from the chair, and silence from the board. Run these meetings like a council meeting. The proposals weren't read publicly even though the Assistant City Clerk attempted to correct the chair's omission to do it.

The city charter established a strong mayor, weak council form of government and it has been contentious between these two bodies every since regarding what they roles should be. The "tweaking" of charter language by the administration and the council attempts to deal with the strong mayor, weak council concept. Granted, some proposals are not substantive, just technical changes. But each proposal deserves in-depth study and discussion because changes to a "constitution" are serious and could have unintended circumstances later on.

I question whether in-depth study and discussion took place during this meeting. Who knows, maybe this group studied these proposals and discussed these proposals with the mayor or other councilors before they came to the meeting. I hope this group of citizens talked to someone because they are lay people who are not experienced in government or this charter. Proposals from Kirby and the City Attorney were passed with little or no debate and frankly, discussion only started once Interim City Clerk Roust got up and questioned what they were actually doing regarding Finance Director Turbak's proposals.

Then we come to Councilor Jamison. His proposals come from past history and controversy with the Mayor. Board member Aanenson shut down Councilor Jamison and Thimjon seconded silencing City Council Jamison. Why such a disrespectful display of behavior? Whose water is Aanenson really carrying? Knudson didn't want to offend her fellow councilor so attempted to postpone it to another meeting. Aanenson shut her down. They all voted to shut him down except Knudson.Whether you agreed with his proposals or not, Councilor Jamison deserved to be heard and his proposals deserved a proper discussion. Shameful behavior towards an elected city councilor member.

Pay attention to the business being conducted by the Charter Revision Commission. They will decide what charter language should be changed and submitted to the good folks of Sioux Falls citizens to vote on in April. This is serious business because it is the city's constitution. These people who were appointed to serve on this charter revision commission should be unbiased. I did not see that at this meeting and Aanenson was the king bully that day. He played the mayor's role very successfully.

This meeting was just an extension of what goes on between the mayor and the city council. I have never been a fan of this form of government. Electing a lay person to be the "CEO" of city government is a crapshoot. This form of government promotes the kind of territorial in fighting that has been going on since it was voted in back in 1995. I think this city is big enough for a city manager form of government.

Everybody has an agenda. Let's hope the agenda is good government. I did not see that at this meeting.

Conventions Centers - Familiarity Breeds Contempt

2012-01-04T09:44:00.000-06:00

It does not matter where you live in this country, you are going to read an article about the unprofitability of convention centers. We all heard about how profitable the Sioux Falls Convention Center was going to become with the building of a new Event Center.

In Virginia Beach, Virginia there is a public controversy going on regarding the Virginia Beach Convention Center and the necessity to build a another luxury hotel to spur competition with cities like Savannah, Myrtle Beach, Charlotte, Richmond, Louisville, Baltimore, Raleigh and Nashville who have built hotels next to their convention centers. Their state of the art convention center is located approximately eight blocks from the oceanfront. Even with the oceanfront being a selling point, the convention center has brought in little more than half the visits from conventions and trade shows predicted in a 2000 study as reported by a Virginian-Pilot editorial.

The Virginia Beach City Council wants to enter into a public-private partnership with a developer to build a hotel and more conference space. You know, that pesky floor space issue we heard so much about in the campaign. The proposed hotel would cost $102 million with the city paying $67 million up front. The city council says that money will not come from the "general fund." Sound familiar? The VB City Council is split 5-5 and the Mayor is expected to break the tie. Sound familiar?

They say the tourists are going to pay for the hotel. Sound familiar? Virginia Beach has a "Tourism Investment Program Fund" which is similar in theory to our Entertainment Tax Fund. They charge an 8% hotel tax, a 5.5% restaurant meals tax, and 10% amusement tax paid on such things as going to the movies, playing golf, bowling, going to plays, etc. There's a cigarette tax, revenue from parking tickets - this fund has approximately 20 different revenue streams and pays off the debt service of many buildings and facilities in the area.

Their "TIP" is being proposed to pay off the debt incurred with this new public private hotel partnership. Our ETF is going to subsidize the operating expense. The public outcry is that it is a joke to say it won't cost the taxpayers any money. They say they all pay some portion of the tourism tax. They eat out, they go to movies, they play golf - you get the idea. But it's the debt that worries taxpayers here and they don't like it when they read things like a stagnant convention business and the convention center business not meeting projections. They are saying the numbers don't add up. Sound familiar?

There are stories in newspapers all over the country about the convention centers and event centers not meeting expectations or fulfilling those lofty study estimates. The WALLSTREET JOURNAL ran an article last Friday about this very subject. Here's a few quotes out of that article that tell the tale about convention centers :

America's convention center business has been declining, resulting in a nationwide surplus of empty meeting facilities, struggling convention halls and vacant hotel rooms.
Governments have responded to the glut by building more convention centers, financed by debt backed by new taxes and fees on already struggling taxpayers.
Optimistic projections about new facilities fail to account for how other cities are expanding too.
The failure of these facilities to live up to exaggerted projections is nothing that hundreds of millions more in taxpayer dollars can't fix.

It would be funny if it weren't downright ironic. Familiarity breeds contempt.

Cellphone Use While Driving

2012-01-01T12:33:00.001-06:00

It looks like the citizens of South Dakota will see a bill in the 2012 Legislature banning texting while driving and/or banning cellphone use while driving. I have to admit that when texting first became available, I texted while driving. I do not text while driving anymore and haven't for quite a long time. I have scared myself silly too many times to continue to do it.

I do not support the whole cellphone use ban, however. I know that probably sounds like a wishy washy stance that doesn't make sense, but at least when a person is talking on their phone, their eyes are not down looking at their phone. I have hands link free system tied to bluetooth in my van that makes it pretty darn easy to answer the cellphone if it rings. The button to answer it is right on the steering wheel. My eyes stay on the road and my hands are on the steering wheel.

The article in the ARGUS LEADER was interesting and in-depth in its coverage of the possibility of a cellphone ban in the Legislature this year. Both Sheriff Milstead and Police Chief Barthel make a lot sense regarding this issue. I would think law enforcement professionals should weigh in heavily on the issue when it comes before the legislature and they should be listened to as the experts. The careless driving statute covers it and enforcing such a law is nigh onto impossible. However, clearer heads have not been the norm with legislators in Pierre.

If the legislators in Pierre want to ban cellphone use, then they should also include banning such activities such as turning your head to talk to your child or other person in the car, putting in a CD, changing the radio station, eating food in the car, putting on your lipstick, blowing your nose, sneezing where you momentarily shut your eyes, drinking coffee or pop, or looking at the person in the car next to you picking his nose. Really, how ridiculous a list do you want to make it?

From a state which has always been about personal freedoms, this is a curious stance. But then why should it surprise anyone considering what the legislature did about the abortion issue last year which will end up costing the taxpayers millions of dollars.

It will be interesting to see what develops regarding this topic in the 2012 Legislature. I say no to legislation on this issue. I agree with the Sheriff and the Police Chief. Why create a law you can't enforce when there is already a law on the books to cover it?

1st Avenue Parking Ramp Update

2012-01-01T08:29:00.000-06:00

Thanks to KELOLAND TV we now know why there is free hourly parking in the 1st Avenue Parking Ramp. City Director Darrin Smith said, "We wanted to make sure that, especially in the month of December that customers Downtown go shopping, visiting Downtown was as convenient as possible for them so we've allowed them to park in the ramp."

Come on, if that was really the reason for not collecting hourly parking fees because of "a few setbacks in software issues communicating with the city's IT, then why not advertise the grand benevolent gesture back in late November when they knew the system was not capable of going live?

Why didn't the city do a press release letting the general public know that they were going to give the Downtown shoppers a Christmas gift in December? It's not like they don't know how to do press releases since there is at least a couple press releases a day coming out of City Hall. What a great way to let citizens and visitors to our great city know that they could park for free while visiting and shopping downtown.

Director Smith stated that the city parking lot delay is not costing the city money because it's saving money on the salaries of the people they let go. The hourly parking only brings in $50 a day, for goodness sakes. It's hardly worth the effort to collect the fees. If that is the case, it sounds like a nuisance fee to me. Maybe the Public Parking Facilities Board needs to just do away with that piddly, nuisance amount of revenue and let the shoppers and visitors park in the ramp free all the time.

Oh and by the way, there is a nice new business-like sign up on the parking fee machine instead of that tacky grey tape covering the slot. It now says, Please proceed. Upgrades in progress.

Another spin cycle out of City Hall after the cow left the barn. Mooooooooo!

Which Lane Am I Supposed to Turn Into?

2011-12-29T19:51:00.000-06:00

If it has been a long time since you looked at the drivers license manual, you might have forgotten one test question relating to which lane you are required to enter when making a left turn. There are a lot of drivers in Sioux Falls who have forgotten the rule or just choose to ignore the rule. Actually state law specifically addresses left turns:

32-26-18. Left-turning vehicle--Manner of making turn--Violation as misdemeanor. The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left shall approach the turn in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of the vehicle. If practicable, the left turn shall be made to the left of the center of the intersection and so as to leave the intersection or other location in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the same direction as the vehicle on the roadway being entered. A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.

As a driver, you are supposed to turn into the lane closest to the one you came from. Very few do it. People turn into the lane they need to be in and the majority of the time it is the farthest lane, not the closest lane. One of the reasons for turning directly into the lane you eventually want to be in is because other drivers won't let you in when you want to change lanes. Everyone is in a hurry. Heaven forbid someone gets a head of you. Traffic is heavy and you need to cross over two or more lanes to get to the turn lane you really want to be in and no one is going to accommodate you.

Well, last week the police were ticketing people who were breaking the rule. I know someone personally who got a ticket for $120 for making a left turn out of the Empire Mall at the stoplight by Macy's and entering the farthest the lane, not the lane closest to the lane they came from. This person needed to make a right turn at the next intersection and traffic was heavy. My friend practically had a heart attack. She said she knew the rule but everyone does it. She said, who heard of anyone getting a ticket for turning into the farthest lane.

In Lewis Drug a couple days later, two workers in the pharmacy department were overheard talking about the very same thing. Evidently, one of them got a $120 for the same thing out at the Mall and the other person said a friend got stopped for it as well.

I feel bad for my friend but I actually kind of like the fact that the police are targeting this rule. It is broken all the time and it is annoying. I say go for it. The more people who get the ticket, the more people will talk about it, and hopefully, more people will start turning into the lane closest to them and start being courteous to other drivers who have their turn signal on to change lanes.

Then I want the police to get all those speeders on 57th Street, and the ones who run red lights thinking they are sneaking through a yellow caution light. Maybe this could be a public service program focusing on basic traffic laws for Channel 16 by the SFPD. For many drivers, it has probably been a long time anyone has looked at the drivers manual. There are plenty of drivers out there who could use a refresher course in traffic rules. Me included.

Be courteous and be safe out there and follow the rules of the road.

Free Parking at the 1st Avenue Parking Ramp

2011-12-26T21:36:00.002-06:00

I wonder how many people know that the 1st Avenue Parking Ramp was to undergo a new parking ramp system that did away with a live person attendant, going to an Entry Station with Integrated Swipe Pad and Ticket Dispenser. The City announced the upcoming change back in late November. Here is what the new system was going to look like when the new system was to go live on November 30th per city public parking officials:

On November 29th, a communication went out to the 1st Avenue Parking Ramp customers. It said in part:

Subject: 1st Avenue Parking Ramp Upgrades
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 22:30:03 +0000

1st Avenue Parking Ramp Customers,

Thank you for your patience as we transition to our new gate equipment. We have experienced some unexpected issues in setting up our new communication network, which has delayed our live date. We are also waiting for the correct gate arms to arrive.

Anticipated Live Date:
Monday Afternoon December 5th (attendant available)

I was downtown on Thursday, December 22nd and parked in the 1st Avenue Parking Ramp. I was ready to try the new system. As I pulled in to take my ticket for hourly parking, this is what I saw:

No ticket. Gate arm up. Did that mean free parking? Sure looked like it to me. I pulled into a space in the ramp and went about my merry way. I came back to my car three hours later and drove to the check out lane and low and behold, it was truly going to be a freebie parking day. As I pulled up to the parking attendant booth, this is what I saw:

It's the end of December and the system has not gone live yet. I checked with a couple of people who work part-time downtown and they said they have been parking for free during the month of December. It is kind of nice that the shoppers and restaurant patrons have been able to park for free during the month of December at the 1st Avenue Parking Ramp. Have to wonder what it has done to the parking revenues though.

It kind of begs the question why the public parking facility officials would go ahead and implement the change when they clearly are not ready to go live with their new parking system. The city laid off two employees who worked at the ramp as parking lot attendants. Why not keep them on until the new system actually goes live so you can still collect the daily parking revenue? Someone doesn't have their eye on the ball. People can say what they want about the previous director, but I doubt seriously that he would have let this snafu happen.

Oh well, park for free at the 1st Avenue Parking Ramp, people! A little present from the City during the Christmas holidays. And maybe it will continue into 2012? I wonder when it is actually going to go live? November 30th and December 5th have come and gone.

Changes In the Newspaper World

2011-12-23T09:37:00.000-06:00

Rumor has it that the ARGUS LEADER will be moving towards Gannett's goal to reduce free on-line access to its newspapers in 2012. According to a Gannett blog dated December 7, 2011, the largest newspaper publisher in the country will reduce it's free for all access online and begin charging for digital access. Gannet started its paywall test in July 2010 with three of its newspapers, one being the Chicago Sun Times which has already begun charging for online access.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the business model of the print media needed to change in order to survive. Newspapers are losing money. Not a big surprise and I, for one, don't think they can blame it totally on the digital explosion. Have you looked at the local newspaper lately? The actual pages of news have been reduced to a couple of thin pages. The local news content leaves something to be desired with articles lacking investigative depth while basically regurgitating bland information with no hard line questioning.

There are always going to be people who want to get that newspaper delivered to their home. Where you once had to only open your front door and pick up your newspaper, you now must get dressed, put some shoes on and go hunt for it somewhere out on your front lawn, on the boulevard, or down your driveway close to the street, buried in the bushes or in your neighbor's yard. That is if you get the newspaper delivered that morning at all.

With the digital explosion, a lot of people are now choosing to get their news off their computers, through their smart phones or their iPads, Nook or whatever other tablet is now available. Gannett CEO Gracia Martore said the newspaper publisher needs to "capture revenue and profitability from our newspapers."

That from the newspaper giant who, in 2011 laid off over 700 employees nationwide while Bob Dickey, Gannett’s U.S. newspapers division president, was paid $3.4 million last year, up from $1.9 million the year prior. In the memo announcing the 700 nationwide layoffs, Dickey wrote, “While we have sought many ways to reduce costs, I regret to tell you that we will not be able to avoid layoffs.”

If you access the Chicago Sun Times link above, they were not immune to layoffs either. One day after the layoffs, the Sun Times announced their new paywall policy. The newspaper giant is no different than Wall Street and other big corporations who continue to pay their executives exorbitant salaries and bonuses at the expense of the people who are the backbone of their companies and who are obviously dispensable in their new business model to improve profitability.

The fee model for online access will be interesting to watch. If you want to subscribe to electronic access only, the ARGUS LEADER will charge you the same monthly amount that you would pay for a 7 day subscription of the print copy delivered to your home. I hope they rethink that price model when they introduce their new paywall policy in 2012. After the first 20 page views every 30 days, Chicago Sun Times readers will be required to pay $6.99 a month (or $77.87 a year) for continued access. I think the ARGUS LEADER could charge half that amount since we probably get half the newspaper news the readers of the Chicago Sun Times gets in their newspaper.

I am a user of the online access of the ARGUS LEADER after giving up on the dismally poor home delivery service and the inability to get satisfaction from customer service calls. When I do pick up a print copy laying around the salon or a restaurant, I am thankful I am not paying $18.89+tax per month for such a flimsy newspaper. I am willing to pay something for full on-line access but the newspaper needs to do its part too by providing me something newsworthy to read instead of bland stories and no investigative reporting.

The New Hot Spot in Town

2011-12-18T23:45:00.000-06:00

The Mayor held his latest Listening and Learning Session at the Moose Lodge on Burnside Avenue this past week and he predicted what will soon become some of the most valuable real estate in town.

The ARGUS LEADER reported: Huether acknowledged property along Burnside is on a new course for development as hotels, bars, restaurants and retail expected to grow up in the shadow of the events center will need building sites.

“Your property is going to be a lot more valuable,” Huether said.

The Mayor's latest prediction regarding the area surrounding the new Event Center is contrary to what everyone else has been saying about the area. What does the Mayor know that most everyone else says probably isn't going to happen?

This very area was highlighted in a SF Business Journal article back in December, 2010:

One Developer’s Perspective of the Arena Site: An Area 'Still Kind Of Limping Along' -- Doug Brockhouse grew up in the neighborhood, which has been known through the years as West Sioux. He also owns a business, Arena Storage, on West Second Street. Some of the streets are at unusual angles - such as the diagonal Burnside Street - because they were built around a huge military base. Remains of some of the barracks still are visible in the neighborhood. Today, the area "is still kind of limping along and nothing has really ever taken flight out there," said Brockhouse, a principal with Bender Commercial Real Estate. Brockhouse doesn't envision much more development if an events center is built there. "I really don't see much growth out there because of it," he said. "I really don't." (Sioux Falls Business Journal, Dec. ’10)

This is the very area that was embroiled in a controversy back in June of this year related to an ethics complaint against Councilor Entenman regarding his ownership of property near the Event Center location.

Back in June, 2011 the Ethics Board rendered its decision regarding a conflict of interest complaint filed against Councilor Entenman regarding his building on Burnside Avenue and whether he should be allowed to vote on the Event Center location due to a financial interest.

The Ethics Board ruled there was no conflict of interest and Ethics Board member Bill O'Connor stated, "Whatever we've done in that area hasn't necessarily had a good financial outcome for areas businesses. Even the ARGUS LEADER reported the board based its decision in part on the fact that land values didn't go up after the SF Convention Center was built in the mid-1990's and after upgrades were made to the SF Stadium in 2000.

Councilor Entenman was cleared of a conflict of interest so he could vote with the mayor on placing the Event Center in a place that even the Ethics Board saw as having no land value potential - at the time.

In a November 29, 2011 article in the SF Business Journal, two local developers talked about that area as well in terms of investment predictability.

I think the new events center will add a whole new dynamic to the area because of its massiveness and newness,” said developer Craig Lloyd of Lloyd Cos. “Will that attract development and entrepreneurs to go out there? I don’t know."

According to the article, AECOM estimated the events center could attract $6.7 million in new investment, which would result in $30,000 in additional property taxes. “The existing visitor-serving facilities within the complex have had little impact on business attraction to the area,” the report concluded, noting that financing projects might be difficult because the area has not shown a record of many successful developments. “It’s all true,” Lloyd said. “You’re not surrounded by residential. Rooftops drive restaurants, retail and offices. It’s just going to be tough to go out there. The first couple people are going to have to be real pioneers.”

Developer Jim Dunham of The Dunham Co. agreed. “I think the events center, long term, will be good for Sioux Falls and good for the economy,” he said. “But it’s unfortunate that due to the location it will not drive other development. It will have no impact on the immediate area. It’s not an area where you’d go build a spec strip mall or office building because you’re not going to get anybody to move out there.” The former Oaks hotel site along Russell Street might be redeveloped, but other opportunities are minimal, Dunham said. “It’s just an area nobody drives on a daily basis,” he said. “I can’t imagine what you would build out there, maybe a convenience store, maybe a liquor store. I can’t imagine what you can add that would survive on just the events center alone.”

Just give it a little time. The story keeps changing. Now we know that the property out there is going to be a lot more valuable. The mayor said, “I’m not telling the Moose to sell or put up a for-sale sign, but property around here, as the events center gets built, you will see for-sale signs going up.”

Councilor Entenman said his property was not for sale. He said he was optimistic about the investment possibilities in that area. I guess we should wait and see if a For Sale sign goes up on his property out there because, after all, it's going to be a lot more valuable out there according to the Mayor. Who knows, maybe the Mayor knows something the local developers don't know.

The Northwest is the new hotspot.

A Deficit Staved Off by Football - Go Team!!

2011-12-16T20:54:00.000-06:00

The Bismark Tribune wrote a short article that the winning Bison of NDSU have saved the Fargodome from a deficit in 2011. Actually, the Tribune called it a financial boon.

The Fargodome which sits on the NDSU campus, is home to NDSU's Bison Football team. It has seating capacity for 19,000 for football games and 25,000 seats for concerts. It was financed in part by a half cent sales tax approved by the taxpayers.

It seems the Fargodome would have had a deficit had it not been for NDSU's football team playing in the Football Championship subdivision playoffs. The Fargodome estimates it nets $30,000 off of each game played at the Fargodome. Three home playoff games are turning an expected budget deficit into an anticipated surplus of $20,000.

Isn't that interesting? The Fargodome is home to a Division 1 football team which is a big draw for the facility. Even with the anchor tenant of a big Division 1 football team, this facility was heading towards a deficit in 2011. Even with those 3 playoff games, it will only push it to approximately $20,000 over expenses. That is not very comforting news.

SMG reported to the city council that the Arena netted about $700 per Skyforce game in the 2009-2010 season and that the overall revenue was up a little more in the 2010-2011 season. So the mindset seems to be "no big deal" that the Skyforce is leaving the Arena and going to the Sanford Pentagon to play. Even if the Storm and Stampede agree to "anchor" at the Event Center, it might not guarantee the facility a surplus. It depends on what kind of a "deal" they negotiate in their contract.

The fact is there are no guarantees when operating an event center. It's going to take more than two semi-pro teams to push the event center to a surplus. Maybe the mayor can get the USD and SDSU presidents to sign on the dotted line since they stood before the bright lights of the media to say they supported the building of the event center.

Then we can hope they get into the Football Championship subdivision playoffs and stave off a deficit. Go Team!!

Gridlock Once Again

2011-12-15T09:36:00.000-06:00

Congress is once again holding America hostage. Tiresome politics on both sides of the aisle in my opinion. This whole payroll tax cut extension is an interesting fight between Republicans and Democrats and each side is pandering to their base.

I understand that the Social Security payroll tax cut approved a year ago was done to stimulate the economy but I wonder if this payroll tax should continue to be extended again. These temporary fixes are just that - temporary. Pretty soon, this temporary Social Security payroll tax cut will be considered permanent and then the Social Security fund will be in really big trouble.

The Democrats talk about this temporary tax cut as a tax increase if it's not extended. How long has the Social Security payroll tax been in place? A long time. Letting this temporary payroll tax cut lapse is not a tax increase. This tax has been in place for a very long time. Does Congress think the American people are simple minded?

I hate all this pandering to the base in each political party. Instead of worrying about stimulating the economy through these temporary fixes, why not get some substantial work done like actually creating jobs through legislation. The Keystone Pipeline has been controversial to the states of Nebraska and South Dakota and the jobs it will create are temporary, not permanent jobs. Once again, a temporary mentality that holds the American people hostage to party ideology.

I don't think the temporary cut in the Social Security payroll tax should be extended. Fix the tax code so the 1% can't get out of paying their fair share of taxes. Think big picture instead of piecemealing the American people to death with one issue at a time. All this small minded politics does is create gridlock. I am sick to death of it.

Naming Rights Ordinance - I Think You Should Draft It.

2011-12-14T08:40:00.000-06:00

I watched Darrin Smith's presentation regarding the Naming Rights ordinance to the Public Service Committee on Monday, December 12th. I found it quite amusing. Here stood a director of a city department and he was asking part-time councilors for language change suggestions on drafting new ordinance language. He cited problems with the current ordinance but offered no solutions, no ideas for change. Clearly, he had not done his homework. He wanted someone else to do it, namely the Public Services Committee.

Obviously, the naming rights ordinance needs some major overhaul. It's great to ask for input but you would think that a city director would at least do some research and come forward with some substantive information instead of standing before a city council subcommittee thinking out loud about all the problems with the current ordinance without direction or concrete solutions.

The naming rights issue was generated out of the mayor's administration as part of the revenue package for the Event Center. It is the administration's job to research the naming rights issue and present a draft ordinance based on research and sound analysis. It's not the councilors job to do research for Smith. It's their job to finalize the policy ordinance for adoption. I think Director Smith forgot he is no longer a city councilor. He is a city director now. He has to actually do the work. He doesn't get to ask someone else to do it for him, especially city councilors.

When Councilor Brown asked Director Smith if he was going to bring a draft for the Council to review and comment, Director Smith said "Yup." That just about sums up the depth of this discussion.

When Shall The City Council Meet - and Other Things?

2011-12-13T16:36:00.000-06:00

The City Council's Public Services Committee was scheduled on Monday, December 12th, to discuss a draft ordinance which details changes to Chapter 2 of the city code of ordinances titled "Administration."

The main reason to revise this ordinance chapter appears to be to change the day the city council meetings are held. That's what the title of the ordinance and agenda says anyway. There is more than just the Monday-Tuesday revision being considered in this ordinance revision, however. There are a number of changes being proposed and some of the changes are rather interesting.

Change highlights:

Although the draft language only proposes changing the day of the meeting, the city attorney asked the committee to also consider changing the time of the meeting. Back in the commission form of government, meetings used to be held in the morning. I remember why it was changed - to provide better access of meetings to the public. Pfeifle stated that people work all kinds of schedules these days and have opportunities to view the meetings on TV and on the Internet. He implored the council to consider changing the meeting time as well. He said he was sure employers would grant time off to employees who would want to address the council. Are you kidding me? Most people have enough trouble just getting time off to attend their children's events much less get time off to go to a city council meeting. Ridiculous. Changing the meeting time of the council to a day meeting is a step backwards in public accessibility. Councilors Erpenbach and Aguilar stated they are opposed to changing the time of meetings.

Current ordinance states that there will be minutes of the City Council's Executive Sessions and that the minutes will be sealed in the City Clerk's office. The new proposed language deletes the requirement that there will be minutes recorded of executive sessions. The city attorney stated this change was being proposed with input from the clerks who are uncomfortable being responsible for minutes of these meetings that they do not attend. The city attorney said minutes of executive sessions are not required by state law. The City Clerk, by charter, is the official record keeper of city records. The appointive City Clerk should be in city council executive sessions and be the record keeper of the proceedings. Assistant city clerks are administrative civil service employees and shouldn't be involved in council executive sessions. The city has the tendency to treat the Assistant Clerks as if they are the same as the appointive City Clerk and that is a mistake. As an appointive official, the City Clerk retains a higher level position in the organization than the assistant clerks. To not have a record of an executive session because the clerical administrative civil service employees are uncomfortable only further cements the loss of a bonafide appointive city clerk official running the city council office. (Section 2-7)

The City Clerk currently serves as the parliamentarian for meetings of the city council. This language is being proposed to be deleted. Pfeifle stated Roberts Rules of Order state the presiding officer serves as parliamentarian. He said it is a collaborative effort between the mayor and the council so that's why the language designating the City Clerk is being deleted. It seems this deletion came from Acting City Clerk Roust. As Roust said the parliamentarian advises and the presiding officer (mayor) and the council rules on an issue. So why not keep the appointive City Clerk the parliamentarian who advises on questions of Roberts Rules of Order that come up at council meetings? Between the City Clerk and the City Attorney, the two of them should be proficient in Roberts Rules of Order. The city council has too much on their plate as is. The assistant clerk is busy taking minutes and shouldn't be the parliamentarian. The City Clerk is always at the meetings in addition to the clerical acting assistant clerk who is taking the minutes. Sounds like the neutering of the City Clerk position. (Section 2-8)

Language is being added regarding contracts. The new language says that one councilor can remove a contract issue from the consent agenda to the regular agenda for discussion but then it goes on to say that moving a contract issue from the consent agenda to the regular agenda merely to ask questions or gather background information is not necessary and should be discouraged. Isn't asking questions and/or gathering background information considered additional discussion? A consent agenda item means there are no questions or discussion. The proposed last sentence is administrative editorial stuff. Council Erpenbach didn't like that last sentence either and said she felt like she had her hand slapped. (Section 2-15)

New language is being proposed regarding the public input portion on a council agenda. According to the change, a person can not address an issue during the public input portion of the meeting agenda if the issue is on the council agenda. So, a person who may have a time conflict when an agenda item actually is discussed later in the meeting can't address the issue early? This revision is codifying what is being done in practice. That may be but not it's making it black and white with no ability to deal with special circumstances. In addition, new language states no council member will be permitted to engage in a dialogue or discussion with the presenter. Doesn't that restrict the concept of free speech? Why restrict dialogue or discussion at public input? It sure seems like this language is putting restraints on public input. (Section 2-16)

The other issue in Section 2-15 deals with walking in items and still meeting the open meeting laws. The City Attorney is worried about the 24 hour notice. The proposed changes will put stronger timelines in place to meet the open meeting laws. It is always good to meet the requirements of the open meeting laws.

The mayor uses executive orders to deal with internal administration matters. These are internal procedures, not policies requiring ordinance codification. In the past, copies of executive orders were filed with the City Clerk. That requirement is being deleted and language is being proposed that the executive orders will placed on InSite which is the city's intranet. To my knowledge this is already being done for internal administrative purposes. Why does it need to be codified in city ordinance? The significant thing here is that no longer will the City Clerk get copies of Executive Orders. This was a request of the city clerk's office. They don't want to maintain copies any longer. Where executive orders are kept is an administrative issue. Why should this even be in ordinance language. It is an administrative procedure not a policy. (Section 2-35)

Language is being proposed that there no longer needs to be a roll call to adjourn a meeting just a motion to adjourn. (Section 2-25)

Any change to an ordinance should always be made with one specific thing in mind - the public. How does this city ordinance affect transparency in government and the public's right to know? Granted, the executive session minutes language is confidential but not to keep a record of what goes on behind closed doors should still be recorded otherwise, anything can be done behind closed doors with no oversight or record.

Changes to the Administration ordinance will certainly generate further discussion. Some of the language change deals specifically with administrative issues and other changes deal with impact to the public. It is insight into how the council conducts their business. The Public Services Committee voted to move the ordinance out of committee and present as 1st reading to the City Council. We shall see what the City Council does regarding these proposed changes.

Political Quotes

2011-12-11T12:11:00.001-06:00

I love quotes. What people say make you think. Here are some good ones. If you have one, add it in the comments section.

Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. (Dr. Samuel Johnson)

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. (Elizabeth Warren)

One of the things I have told you folks early on is that I am ..about as fiscally conservative of a person you are going to meet because of the way I grew up. (Mayor Mike Huether)

Members of Congress are playing with people's lives, not just their own political careers. (Pennsylvania Fire Chief Martin Bonifanti)

Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous. You get knocked down by traffic from both sides. (Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of Great Britain)

I don't care if I have a conflict of interest or not. (City Councilor Jim Entenmen)

The willingness to change one's mind in the light of new evidence is a sign of rationality not weakness. (Renowned psychologist Stuart Sutherland)

What is conservatism? Is it not the adherence to the old and tried against the new and untried? (Abraham Lincoln)

I think 'Hail to the Chief' needs a little bit fresher sound. I might put some gospel beats in 'Hail to the Chief. (Herman Cain, former Republican Candidate for President)

When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I'm beginning to believe it. (Clarence Darrow)

A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. (Franklin D. Roosevelt, radio speech, 26 October 1939)

Americans who feel the most ignored these days are not the screamers. They are the solid citizens who are sick to death of pols who play to the rant. ( Time Columnist Joe Klein)

The hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning. (Adlai E. Stevenson)

There are always too many Democratic congressmen, too many Republican congressmen, and never enough U.S. congressmen. (Author Unknown)

The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club. (Dave Barry)

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. (President Ronald Reagan)

Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct. (Thomas Jefferson)

I've always said that in politics, your enemies can't hurt you, but your friends will kill you. (Former Texas Governor Ann Richards)

Although he's regularly asked to do so, God does not take sides in American politics. (Former Senate Majority Leader from Maine George J. Mitchell)

I think the decision that's been made with respect to allowing gays to serve openly in the military is a good one. (Former Vice President Dick Cheney)

Politics would be a helluva good business if it weren't for the goddamned people. (President Richard Nixon)

There go my people. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them. (French politician Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin 1807-1874)

The people of this country, not special interest big money, should be the source of all political power. (Paul Wellstone)

Either we hang together or we will surely all hang separately. (Benjamin Franklin, requoted by former Defense Secretary Bob Gates)

I am in this race because I fundamentally feel the American people are getting screwed. (Republican Presidential Candidate Jon Huntsman)

I don't think right wing social engineering is any more desirable than left wing social engineering. I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate. (Republican Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich)

Good rule to follow: never reward someone's incivility by giving them the headline they seek. (Joe Scarborough, MSNBC Morning Joe.)

Event Center Naming Rights

2011-12-10T14:24:00.000-06:00

The Lincoln Journal Star reported that the city will sign a contract with Pinnacle Bank for naming rights to the tune of $11.5 million for the next 25 years. The 16,000 seat arena in Lincoln, Nebraska is set to open in 2013 and has the University of Nebraska as it's anchor tenant. Lucky them. The bank will pay $280,000 annually for naming rights until September 2023, when its payments will increase to $563,333 until the end of the contract in 2037.

Argus Leader reporter Jonathan Ellis wrote a blog about the announcement as well. It will be interesting to watch the naming rights develop over the next year for city's event center. He is right when he speculates that anyone writing a check for naming rights for 20 plus years will probably want to know who is actually going to be in the Event Center besides concerts, tradeshows and conventions. We know the Skyforce won't be playing there.

Superlative completed a Naming Rights & Marketing Analysis Study in June 2011. Now that the voters have passed the event center plan, what are the city's plans to move forward with a contract with Superlative? Will the mayor's administration have monthly or quarterly reports to the city council as the event center construction and the marketing plans moving forward?

Here is what Superlative said is possible in revenue expectations for the Event Center:

Sponsorship Naming Rights: Valued at $350,00 to $500,000 per year, these rights, based on a 20 year agreement with a 3% fee escalator is estimated to bring in a range of $9.4 million to $13.4 million.
5 Premium Sponsorship Packages: These packages are for things like interior signage locations, banking & ATM naming rights, Concourse naming rights, Atrium naming rights, Emergency Exit Naming Rights. These packages would be priced in a range of $50,000 to $175,000 per year. These premium packages is estimated to bring in $6.8 million to $16.8 million over a 20 year agreement.
15-18 Suite Sales: Suites would be sold in a range of $25,000 to $37,000 per year. Using a 20 year agreement with a 3% fee escalator, the revenue is projected at $10.7 million if 15 suites were sold for $25,000 each and up to $18.1 million if 18 suites were sold at $37,000 each.
Additional Sponsorships with local businesses: The idea is to get local businesses to buy sponsorships for things like a Trash Receptacle Program, Concession Partner Program, Food Cart Program, Children's Play Area Program, Business Center Program, First Aid Center Program, etc. No money was estimated for these sponsorships in the report.

The Total overall estimated income range for 20 years for all these various naming rights and sponsorships is $975,000 to $1,875,000 per year and between $26,277,000 and $48,350,000 over a 20 year period with an industry standard 3% annual fee escalator.

There is a lot of money at stake regarding the naming rights and sponsorship process. This marketing process needs to be transparent to the public. The public needs to know the progress on the marketing results of the city's hired consultant and how much revenue is actually going to be realized annually from the naming and sponsorship rights.

When will those mayor event center update sessions start up again?

City Charter Author has the First Ideas

2011-12-09T10:38:00.000-06:00

Joe Kirby was one of the original authors of the City Charter drafted in 1994. At the November 30th City Charter Commission meeting he telephonically submitted two charter revision ideas for ballot consideration.

The first idea was a little vague but he essentially commented on the city council's role in this form of government and that it was meant to be a part-time policy making body who was supposed to invest no more than 10 to 15 hours per week on policy making city business. He cited the recent action by the city council to require all contracts be approved by the city council as evidence that the city council was moving into the mayor's administrative duties under the charter.

The issue of the roles of the mayor and the city council have been a battle ground since the adoption of the city charter in 1994. The City Attorney is legal advisor to the mayor and the city council. It is the job of the city attorney to protect the language in the city charter and not allow politics to contravene the meaning of the roles of the mayor and city council as set out by charter.

The problem is the city attorney, can at times, be under strong influence of the mayor and forget that he/she serves BOTH bodies and should remain neutral and protect the provisions of the city charter as it relates to the roles of the mayor and city council. The city attorney needs to remain above the fray, but it is difficult. That is hard to do when the mayor picks the city attorney for appointment. Yes, the appointment is subject to advice and consent of the city council but history has shown that the mayor's appointment is gold and this position has become very political.

The city attorney and the office staff of attorneys provide daily legal advice to the mayor and the city departments regarding city administration business. It is an inherent problem with this form of government and has resulted in the city council, at various times over the years, talking about hiring their own attorney. The mayor and directors need someone to rely on for day-to-day legal advice regarding administration business.

How you legislate behavior, though, is nigh onto impossible. I don't think the city charter adequately envisions the dual role when the city attorney works primarily for the administration. It puts the city attorney in a very difficult position at times, especially when the mayor and the city council are at odds. Maybe the language in the city charter relating to the city attorney needs some fixing.

The second idea from Joe Kirby relates to the mayoral runoff provisions. Kirby essentially wants to suggest language that minimizes the spoiler effect, kind of like what happened in the 2010 race. The fact is you are always going to have a spoiler effect when you have a very large pool of mayoral candidates who split the vote. I say tough patootie. Like it or not, the top 2 vote getters deserve to be in the runoff. The voters should have the final say and rank choice voting kind of sounds like cooking the pot to me. A large field of mayoral candidates could cause a surprise runoff, but so be it.

Two ideas worthy of discussion in the city charter debate.

Charter Revision Commission - Why Care?

2011-12-08T11:44:00.000-06:00

I would venture a guess that citizens hear Charter Revision Commission and yawn. Most people don't understand the Charter much less have even read the City Charter. Usually this subject is only near and dear to the people who are impacted by the charter or are very involved in local government issues.

The citizens of Sioux Falls voted to change the form of government back in 1994 from a commission form of government to a home rule charter form of government. Voters have been faced with ballot language changes since 1994 and those ballot issues all came from a Charter Revision Commission made up of citizens appointed by the mayor and city council.

Here are the citizens, appointed by the mayor and city council, to the Charter Revision Commission:

Dennis W. Aanenson- Term Expires - October 2014
De Knudson- Term Expires - October 2014
Robert Thimjon- Term Expires - October 2014 (Elected Vice-Chair)
Richard O. Gregerson - Term Expires - October 2014
Pauline Poletes - Term Expires - October 2014 (Elected Chair)

The City Charter spells out how the city is run. The point is that the City Charter is a very important document and if changes are recommended by the Charter Revision Commission, voters get the final say on any changes.

The new Charter Revision Commission held it's first meeting on November 30th. They spent the first 15 to 20 minutes just trying to set up 3 future meetings. I always find it interesting that people volunteer to be on public boards but when you try to schedule a meeting, they are too busy.

It is a nightmare to schedule a meeting with board members. Kind of like herding cats. I always thought that one very important criteria in screening and selecting citizens for public boards was to first check to make sure they were prepared to be flexible in scheduling meeting dates and times. Yes, yes, we know you are busy, we know you have another life but really, to say you run a business and the only days that work for you are Mondays and Fridays is pretty self serving and inconsiderate. Same goes for lobbying at the SD Legislature. Lobbying takes up a huge chunk of time that makes one pretty unavailable and a nightmare for trying to get a meeting date scheduled. Instead of making a political appointment, maybe the city needs to add a question about ability to serve by being calendar flexible.

The City Attorney set out a timeline for action that really pushes this Commission to action. In order to get any issues on the ballot in April 2012, this body needs to complete it's work by January 2012, according to the City Attorney. That means they need public input from citizens and the mayor's administration by the December 16th meeting or at the latest the January 4, 2012 meeting. That's next week, folks. Their last scheduled meeting is January 27th. That is all well and good as long as no substantive issues come before this commission. Seems like kind of a rush to me, but we will see.

If a citizen has something to submit to this commission, it is recommended they be submitted no later than three days prior to the next scheduled meeting. Better get your comments e-mailed by December 13th at the latest for the December 16th meeting if you have something you want to say. You can e-mail your comments to charterrevisioncomments.siouxfall.org through December 31, 2011.

Public input on December 16th should be interesting. I wonder what the mayor's administration will be proposing for changes to the charter this go around. There has already been input from citizen Joe Kirby who helped draft the charter back in 1994 but that will be a subject for a future blog.

The point is, everyone should care. It's our government. It's important to all of us how our city government runs. We should all care enough to be informed. If you want to comment or complain, you need to pay attention and submit your comments or ideas for change.

The GOP Contenders

2011-12-06T08:50:00.001-06:00

It's quite a show - these GOP wannabees. A winner every month or so. First came Trump, then came Bachman, then came Perry, then came Cain. Oh sorry, I was breaking into song about a baby carriage. I meant then came Newt. Poor Mitt, always the bridesmaid, never the bride.

Mitt is too fake, too plastic, not conservative enough for the conservatives. The conservatives will turn to almost anyone it seems in their search to find someone conservative enough. How about someone who serves the entire Republican Party. I guess that might work if the Republican Party knew who they wanted to be. The conservative conservatives don't think there is room for moderate Republicans and they certainly don't think a moderate Republican should be in the White House.

Donald Trump, the biggest self promoter in history to run for President on the platform that Obama was not born in the United States, is holding a GOP Debate. If you heard him on MSNBC's The Daily Rundown yesterday you realize that the circus just pulled into New York City. Why in the world the media gives this sanctimonious bag of wind the courtesy of feigned interest is beyond me. But there are people that love him - in the Republican Party. Newt does - he met with him yesterday. They probably compared jewels and credit limits at Tiffany's.

The only two GOP hopefuls who seem to have a mind of their own and still want to own their own ideas are Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman. Too bad for them since no one is interested in these two Republicans. Why Jon Huntsman has not caught on with the Republican voters is any one's guess but I would venture that he has three things going against him: #1 no Grover Norquist tax pledge signed; #2 he worked in the Obama administration; #3 he is a Morman. This from a guy who said he wouldn't kiss Trump's ring or any other part of his anatomy. But best of all, when you read anything about him, it's said that he is the most conservative of all the candidates running today. How ironic.

Newt Gingrich is the new front runner. The guy the Republicans wanted out back in the 90's. I love the way the conservative conservatives wrap their arms around these family values guys. They loved Cain and they love Gingrich. Two guys whose family values are akin to Lothario. One guy who blamed the media for creating a conspiracy about sexual harassment claims and an alleged 13 year affair. The other guy who led the effort to get Bill Clinton impeached while he carried on his own extramarital affair and was fined $300,000 for obstructing a House ethics probe against him and an ego the size of Trump's.

The sad thing about all this is this is serious business. We need people that don't look like they belong in Barnum and Baily's Circus of horror shows. The really sad thing is there are people out there who believe that Cain and Gingrich are the real deal to lead this country.

Good thing it is only the Republican primary. What else would we be watching right now that would provide more entertainment? Maybe Trump's Apprentice show. It might be fun to see all these GOP contenders compete for Trump's new apprentice. Oh, never mind, they are going to do that on Trump's hosted GOP debate.

It is a Big Deal

2011-12-05T12:17:00.000-06:00

The Argus Leader Editorial Board says today that the Skyforce leaving is not a blow to the recently approved events center - it's not a big deal. Well, they are right because the Skyforce never said they would go to the Event Center. It's not a blow to the Event Center, it is however, a blow to the Arena.

This isn't sour grapes about the event center. This is about the Arena losing a tenant. This is about lost revenue in rent, lost revenue in concession sales. The Arena, the Convention Center and the Event Center are going to be operated as one, under one management. It may not be a loss to the Event Center but it is a loss just the same. Maybe SMG can make lemonade out of this loss. I hope so, because the City is going to need the revenue lost by the Skyforce leaving that venue.

I wish the AL Editorial Board would stop being the Press Secretary for the Mayor's Administration and start acting like a newsworthy newspaper. Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall a story in the AL about the Skyforce going to Sanford Pentagon during the EC Debate. Reporting the news - what a novel idea for a local newspaper.

Spin Cycle

2011-12-01T09:55:00.001-06:00

The big news yesterday was the Skyforce organization announcing they are leaving the Arena to go play in Sanford's sports complex called the Pentagon.

The Skyforce has been talking with Sanford about this for the past two years and Sanford officials have changed the design to accomodate their wish for a 3,000 seat venue. The Skyforce never said they were going to move to the Event Center but they also never said they intended to leave the Arena. Two years in the making and not a word during the debate. The City just paid close to a half million dollars for a new scoreboard at the Arena. How special.

The spin cycle by SMG's Arena Management and the Sports Authority's Executive Director was humorous and expected. What else are they going to say about losing a major anchor tenant at the Arena? I think they should have played that song "Don't Worry, Be Happy" in the background while they spun their stance that it doesn't mean anything that the Skyforce are leaving the Arena. It's an opportunity.

Just what is to become of the Arena? I looked at the calendar of events posted on the Arena's website and it is mainly the sports venues playing there for the next six months. The Summit League champion games are going to be playing in the Event Center, not the Arena once built per Sports Authority Sullivan. If the Storm and Stampede move to the Event Center what will be left at the Arena? Not much. Will high school graduations, antique and craft shows pay the bills to turn the lights on at the Arena?

City officials and their minions, the Sports Authority, SMG and Global Spectrum better get their marketing skills up and working now. They have a new facility to book in addition to the Convention Center and now they have to deal with a white elephant who just lost an anchor tenant that was at least sure money.

It's becoming a daily spin cycle. We now have the ability to market other things since those Skyforce dates are freed up. Don't worry, be happy.

Event Center Investment - Is it Gamble?

2011-11-30T17:33:00.000-06:00

The SF Business Journal just released an article on the investment predictability at the Event Center site at the Arena/Convention Center. If you haven't read this article in the SF Business Journal, take a moment and read it here.

Good grief! Where were all these developers when the debate on the Event Center was going on? The one thing people may not have understood in the massive campaign to "sell" the Event Center was that all the information was just "estimates and assumptions." There were no real hard facts to support all those figures of generating revenue. Now that the citizens have voted, we hear from the very people who will develop those investment spin offs from the Event Center.

“I think the new events center will add a whole new dynamic to the area because of its massiveness and newness,” said developer Craig Lloyd of Lloyd Cos. “Will that attract development and entrepreneurs to go out there? I don’t know."

AECOM estimated the events center could attract $6.7 million in new investment, which would result in $30,000 in additional property taxes. “The existing visitor-serving facilities within the complex have had little impact on business attraction to the area,” the report concluded, noting that financing projects might be difficult because the area has not shown a record of many successful developments.
“It’s all true,” Lloyd said. “You’re not surrounded by residential. Rooftops drive restaurants, retail and offices. It’s just going to be tough to go out there. The first couple people are going to have to be real pioneers.”

Developer Jim Dunham of The Dunham Co. agreed. “I think the events center, long term, will be good for Sioux Falls and good for the economy,” he said. “But it’s unfortunate that due to the location it will not drive other development. It will have no impact on the immediate area. It’s not an area where you’d go build a spec strip mall or office building because you’re not going to get anybody to move out there.” The former Oaks hotel site along Russell Street might be redeveloped, but other opportunities are minimal, Dunham said. “It’s just an area nobody drives on a daily basis,” he said. “I can’t imagine what you would build out there, maybe a convenience store, maybe a liquor store. I can’t imagine what you can add that would survive on just the events center alone.”

Councilor Entenman is optimistic. Let's hope he can put on his developer hat and help Darrin Smith and Mike Cooper in encouraging developers, hotel and restaurant owners to build or expand out there. No one has wanted to even after the Convention Center was built out there decades ago.

The City is committing a lot of taxpayer dollars to this enterprise. Without their success in transforming that area into an economic and commercial success, it will just become another building in an area of economic desolation. That would be very disappointing and would be a BIG broken promise to the tax paying public who will be paying for it for the next 22 years. Let's hope the Mayor, Smith and Cooper are up to the task. They got the people to vote yes. Now, get to work and transform that area so it will bring in the revenue necessary to pay for it. That would be exciting!

The endless GOP audition for president

2011-11-30T16:36:00.000-06:00

Posted byCNN Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger

Washington (CNN) - It's an audition without end, because the Republicans still can't figure out how to cast the lead role.

Here's how the internal discussion goes: We need someone who is a true conservative. We need someone who is right on the matters we care about - the deficit, immigration, cultural issues. We need someone we can trust, who won't betray us. And, by the way, we also need someone who can win.

It is painful to watch this GOP audition. Is this group of candidates the best the Republicans could produce? Talk about a political party in disarray. They can't even come to an agreement on who their leader should be. I don't know why that is surprising considering the group. Romney and Huntsman are the only two credible candidates and the two of them can't seem to get any traction. Why? Because Romney is not conservative enough and Huntsman won't sign Norquist's tax pledge so he is dead on arrival.

What you have left is a bunch of wannabees who are not ready for prime time and who show it by their "oops" moments and moral dilemmas. A flavor of the month that cannot sustain a lead. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic. The far right has ruined the Republican Party and disenfranchised the moderates.

Snow Gates - Are They Worth It?

2011-11-27T18:09:00.000-06:00

It is that time of year when everyone seems to have an opinion on the use of snow gates. I have never been a supporter of snow gates. It has always seemed to me to be a stupid idea. This idea that government must take care of every little need and want of its citizens is what got us to the federal deficit today.

I picture those big motor graders going down residential streets having to lift and lower that special equipment every so many feet to accommodate all those driveways. Really, do we have to have an argument about shoveling out one's driveway? Sure, it is a pain in the you know what, but Winter is a pain in the you know what. Shoveling snow off sidewalks and at the end of the driveway is a task that homeowners must do each Winter in South Dakota. If the City is going to do our driveways, maybe they should take care of our sidewalks too. Driveways aren't city streets, nor are sidewalks. Same, same. Sure it would be nice to have the city take care of my driveway but is it a necessity?

How many single family houses and driveways are there in this city? A lot. How many miles of streets are there in the city? There are approximately 780 miles of streets maintained by the City. The number of miles grows every year at about 14 miles per year on the average per the city's website. All I know is that I want my residential street plowed right away and not two or three days after more than 2 inches has fallen from the sky. I also want it plowed curb to curb so I can still travel down the street without going through an obstacle course with all the parked cars on the street. 125 people showed up for a town hall meeting on snow gates and people loved them. The thing is, that test was an ideal situation. Those test areas got preferential and immediate treatment. Two very isolated tests versus the entire city - a little different scenario.

The 2010-2011 Snow Gate Analysis conducted by Public Works has some interesting information regarding the testing of snow gates that occurred from October 2010 through March 2011:

Total operational time increased 23% with the use of snow gates.
Fuel consumption increased 31% with the use of snow gates.
Annual plowing cost impact increased 33% with the use of snow gates.
Streets are narrower using snow gates - street width was reduced by 7 feet limiting on-street parking, and increased snow in front of mailboxes and fire hydrants for residents to remove.
Storm Water Inlets are covered with the use of snow gates.
Snow accumulation of greater than 30 inches poses safety issues and public concerns were expressed at a higher level.

The operational challenges for the Street Division of Public Works were:

Snow gates need to be removed for snow pick up, cutting ice, pulling sidewalks, and opening storm water inlets.
Removing or installing snow gates takes an extra 45 minutes each time.
For snowfalls of five inches or greater, snow gates were not as effective.
Wider streets take two passes - can't use a sander plow.
Wet snow doesn't clear the moldboard - need to backup.

The Street Division is going to do another test this season and they are going to use a different manufacturer of snow gates. They are also going to use private contractors this go around. Who knows, maybe this other manufacturer makes a better piece of equipment. We will see.

People in support of snow gates say it is a quality of life issue. People in support of snow gates say they already pay for the public service of plowing streets. People who support snow gates don't want to have to shovel out their driveways. I say fine, just accept the fact that it is going to cost more money, make your streets narrower, and it will take a little longer to plow the snow off of all the city streets. The extra costs and the operational challenges are worthy of consideration by the city council.

I still say they are not worth it. I don't want narrower streets. I don't want to wait longer to get my street plowed. I don't want to earmark more money to the millions already earmarked for snow removal. I want that money to go to fixing and maintaining the streets. A quality of life issue for me is well maintained city streets. A quality of life issue for me is no snow. But then I chose to live in South Dakota, not Florida or California.

Don't send me ugly comments just because I don't agree with all of you who want snow gates. Personally, I think the City Council will cave and vote yes on the snow gates. Then everyone can start complaining that the city is not getting the streets plowed fast enough and too much money has to be spent on snow removal. At least everyone will be happy that their personal driveways are taken care of and they can stay in the house, sit in their chair and watch TV.

After all, that is what government is for - to take care of our every wish and desire, right? When they take care of things we should take care of ourselves, don't complain about your taxes.

Driveways are not streets. Driveways and sidewalks are personal responsibilities. Snow gates are a want, not a need.

Happy Thanksgiving!

2011-11-24T08:24:00.000-06:00

As I gather with my family on this Thanksgiving Day, I am grateful that I am surrounded by people who are caring and compassionate people. We have so much to be thankful for this year. We still have our 93 year old Father with us. We are blessed with young children in our family who bring the joy and wonderment of the holiday season into our lives and we have the anticipation of another new baby girl coming into our family. This Thanksgiving Day we will share fellowship, eat foods that remind us of our dear Mother who passed away, talk fondly of her and enjoy being together again on this day of thanksgiving.

I wish for all of you joy and happiness and love on this Thanksgiving Day. And a piece of apple pie and ice cream.

Should We Vote All the Incumbents Out?

2011-11-23T11:04:00.000-06:00

This week has been disappointing. The country's hope that the Super Committee would be able to come to a compromise on the federal deficit was dashed by our elected representatives to Congress who can't seem to come to an agreement on anything. Washington has become so dysfunctional that you wonder if any of them deserve their seats in Congress. No one seems to have the will to solve the problems of our country; they only have the will to save their party's hard line.

Of course, there are those out there who are applauding the Republicans for sticking to their principles and saying no to any tax increase for the highest 1-2% in this country. After all, they signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge designed by an egomaniac libertarian who runs Americans for Tax Reform which threatens politicians of being targeted at that their next re-election campaign if they either don't sign the pledge or they break the pledge.

Well, here's a thought. Maybe we should adopt the philosophy of KSOO Radio Host Rick Knobe and think twice about re-electing people who can't seem to find common ground and compromise that serves everyone. Knobe read this letter on his radio program yesterday afternoon and I reprint it here without edit. I believe Lauck is a senior advisor/counsel to Senator Thune.

From: Rick Knobe
To: Jon Lauck
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 2:11 PM
Subject: beyond disappointed

jon,

realize you and i are not close friends. however, i need to vent someplace where it might make a difference........sending something directly to the senators and congresswoman will get lost......

this is a thought process more than anything......

as a citizen, taxpayer, voter, i am tired of hearing,,,"we can't cut this, or that, or the other thing...." i understand "protecting your base." nobody has to change, altar their course, or even think about traveling the down road differently.......damn the potholes, full speed ahead....

we are now at a "t" intersection....we can't keep going straight ahead....the sharp turn left, raising taxes, will not give us the long term results the country needs.....the sharp turn right, cutting everything, will not give us the results we need either........

i was praying somehow middle ground could be found and we would begin creating "the road less traveled."(at least by the federal government) neither the "left nor the right road people" wanted to create a new road.

we are a poorer country, in all senses of the word, because of it........

this is what i want from john and chrisite.......i want them to stand up and say "in south dakota we can get by without, this, this and this(specific cuts they know could and should be made).....and make them happen....who knows some other senator or congress person might get a conscience and say the same thing.........

jon, this country needs "leadership." we elect people to lead us....our track record of late is electing people to protect our special interests and hence the problem......

i don't think i voted incorrectly when i voted for john....however, it feels as if he is becoming a parrot, and not a true leader........

i am not sure about my vote for christie.....going to give her a few more months before i decide.........

if congress has not made real and substantial progress on fixing the deficit and debt, my vote will not go to christie, nor will it go to johnson(or his son-don't like family dynastys) nor to john thune....

not ready to throw my tv out the window(network) but am becoming increasingly sad, disappointed, frustrated, and angry about the lack of getting even simple things done...

not one budget resolution done on time...........if this were the private sector.........when the shareholders have their annual meeting, all the board of directors would be fired for lack of competence...........and maybe personally sued for mismanagement.......

i hope you pass these comments on to the senators and congresswoman.......i am not the "enemy." i am a person with some political experience. i know it is not easy to lead. but that is the job......so start leading by specific example..

we know one person can make a difference. we know one person can start a "movement."

i want john, tim, and christie to make that difference and start the movement.....the consequences for the country if they don't is dire...and so is their political future and legacy....

thanks,

rick knobe

I just don't think Thune, Noem and Johnson have the personal conviction to start a movement. They have their party positions and have been espousing those party positions over and over again. The problem is no one in Washington does. The public approval rating of Congress has sunk to 9%. The public does not hold Congress is high esteem and yet Washington does not seem to care. They care about their own agenda, their party's agenda.

And that's why we are in the mess we are in. Maybe it is time to throw everyone out and start over. How much worse can it get?

Grover Norquist's Legacy

2011-11-21T22:56:00.000-06:00

It is just unconscionable what Congress members are doing to this country. The Republicans are thwarting any effort to come to an agreement on debt reduction because it goes against their number one agenda which is to get Obama out if the White House. They blame the President for massive spending and say cuts should come before tax increases. Democrats say the Republicans are not representing the 99% and that the rich are just getting richer and need to pay more of their fair share. They both are willing to sacrifice the economic condition of this country. The Republicans, however, have a Svengali in their midst that is pulling their strings.

I watched Grover Norquist Sunday night on 60 Minutes and my thought was here is another man with narcissistic behavior traits who is almost evil in his glee over his control of Republicans in Congress. He is the driving force in pushing the Republican Party toward a rigid position of opposing any tax increase, of any kind, at any time. The 60 Minutes episode claimed that Norquist has been responsible for rewriting the dogma of the Republican Party. He wants to reduce the size of government to the size of a bathtub and then drown it. What is wrong with these elected Republicans who willingly allow this man to control who they are and what they stand for?

When you do something for fear of losing an election it means compromising your integrity and personal character. It is shameful that Norquist has never held elective office and yet his stranglehold on power and pulling the strings of the Republican party is unprecedented . They say there are cracks in his powerful intimidation but it takes courage to stand up to powerful bullies. There are plenty of cowards who are willing to sell their souls to win an election, it seems. His pledge has a strangle hold on Republicans and it is strangling Congress and its ability to come to a compromise on debt reduction.

When you compromise your principles by letting someone else control who you are and what you think or believe in then you are no longer effective as a leader or believable. Signing a pledge under a threat of being unseated in an election is pure bribery and intimidation.

It was shocking to watch Norquist's glee over how much power he has over the Republicans

in Congress. I wonder how they all feel about being his bitch? I wonder how Speaker Boehner feels about some unelected guy who actually controls the men and women of his party in Congress? Oh, that's right, Speaker Boehner signed the pledge. So did Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, 270 members of Congress and all of the Republican Presidental candidates except Jon Huntsman. He likes to play his little game where he says his pledge of no tax increase is not a pledge to him but to America and their constituants but he says it with the smile of a deceiver while he gleefully talks about the power he wields in the country.

However, the most shocking thing he said in that interview Sunday night was when he talked about his role as simply protecting the Republican brand just as Coca-Cola ensures the quality of its signature product:

Norquist: 'Cause let's say you take that Coke bottle home, and you get home, and you're two thirds of the way through the Coke bottle. And you look down at what's left in your Coke bottle is a rat head there. You wonder whether you'd buy Coke ever again. You go on TV, and you show 'em the rat head in the Coke bottle. You call your friends, and tell them about it. And Coke's in trouble.
Republicans who vote for a tax increase are rat heads in a Coke bottle. They damage the brand for everyone else.

It takes a rat to know a rat.

2nd Reading of An Ordinance to Authorize Event Center Debt

2011-11-21T06:56:00.000-06:00

The ordinance authorizing the issuance of sales tax revenue bonds to pay the costs to design, construct, equip, and furnish the event center and associated site improvements and the cost of issuance of the bonds is up for second reading and passage tonight at the City Council meeting.

It is a rather large and complex ordinance in that it is a sizable debt authorization for a venue that has been contemplated and controversial for over a decade. The ordinance addresses two areas. First, the ordinance will address all the debt amendments that have been authorized since 1988 into this one document. Second, the ordinance authorizes the issuance of Series 2012 bonds and spells out the most important details relating to the new sizable debt:

The bonds may be issued as tax exempt bonds, taxable bonds, or any combination thereof.
The overall true interest cost shall not exceed 4.75% issued on a tax exempt basis or 6.50% issues on a taxable basis.
The maturity date shall be no later than November 15, 2037.

Once the Council acts, the bid process shall begin. We should know in January what kind of bonds will be issued, what the true interest cost will be and what the maturity date will be. I know one thing that is probably a sure bet. Before this construction debt is paid off, every council member who authorizes this debt will be long gone too.

Money Corrupts Politics - Big Deal?

2011-11-20T11:29:00.000-06:00

I just read a very interesting commentary by David Gergen. He is a senior political analyst for CNN and has been an adviser to four presidents. He is a professor of public service and director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

I have always found Gergen to be an informed, balanced commentator who doesn't assault listeners with an extreme left or right perspective. He speaks with a quiet calm, not with a fevered pitch. His latest commentary is on money and whether it is corrupting our political system. It is an interesting read. He talks about a new book by Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig.

The most striking items in the commentary relating to Lessig's book are:

The cost of getting elected to Congress has exploded: from 1974 to 2008, Lessig notes, the average cost of a re-election campaign ballooned from $56,000 to more than $1.3 million, a more than twentyfold increase that far outpaces inflation.
Fundraising is a constant concern: Candidates have to spend between 30% and 70% of their time raising money. (Lobbyists, however can ease this pressure through many kinds of what Lessig calls "legislative subsidies" -- advice, research, support, and most of all, campaign cash.)
The revolving door between Congress and lobbyists is spinning faster: In the 1970s, just 3% of retiring members of Congress went into lobbying. But by 2004, in the previous seven years more than half of all senators and 42 percent of House members had made the switch.
The incentives for lobbying are clear. A 2009 paper found, for example, that firms get between $6 and $20 back for every $1 they invest in lobbying for tax benefits.

I think it is a safe bet to say that money corrupts. The question is how do you keep money from corrupting politics? If you watched a recent 60 Minutes segment on Abramoff and how he used his money and influence to corrupt members of Congress and their staff, you would be offended beyond belief. As 60 Minutes Lesley Stahl stated, it made her sick and very angry. Look at the money the Republican candidates and President Obama raise to finance their campaigns.

The power's that be must address the campaign finance system. Can we have a realistic expectation that Congress will act on the issue? It will be a cold day in hell when that happens. It is the fox guarding the hen house. Money talks. Money buys influence. Money buys power. Money corrupts.

End of story.

Buyer's Remorse? The Devil is in the Details.

2011-11-19T11:06:00.001-06:00

It's been interesting to read articles in the Argus Leader after the election and listening to the bond council presentations. It's kind of like buyer's remorse when you've bought a big ticket item and then you go home and wonder what the heck you have done and how you are going to pay for it. Don't anyone get their pants in a wad since I am sure the yes voters do not have buyer's remorse yet. It's just that it's interesting to hear certain things slowly come to the surface since reality has set in.

Listening to the presentation last week when the bond presenters said the final maturity date of the bonds could be as late as 2037 gave me pause. We were told the bond debt would be for 22 years. I guess we will find out how long the bond debt will actually be in January 2012 when the bond sale is finalized. The actual bond amount will be $115 million plus the cost of insurance, capitalized interest and the $9.5 million debt service reserve fund.

So, how much will the city pay in interest? What exactly is going to affect the interest the city will pay on those bonds?

It gave me pause when I heard that federal government gets concerned when tax exempt bond proceeds get used for private purposes. We might have to issue a combination of tax exempt and taxable bonds which could drive up the interest rate. The issuance of all tax exempt bonds could possibly limit operations that precludes revenues from private sources who benefit from the using the facility. The bond company will structure the bonds to maximize the city's ability to enter into private contracts with private sources to maximize the revenues. The bond council said the only reason you issue taxable bonds is you perceive the benefit of having the flexibility to generate private revenue from private users is going to be more than pay you back. So, I guess we will see how much their analysis says private revenues will be forecasted when we see the percentage between the tax exempt bonds and the taxable bond structure.
Because of the issue size of the bond, the recommendation is to get two bond ratings, one from Standard and Poor's and one from Moody's. Normally, the city only got one bond rating in past bond debt issues. With two bond ratings, you get more people interested in bidding on the bonds because of the size of the bond. Each bond rating will cost $65,000 which is built into the bond proceeds.
Bank qualified or non-bank qualified? Anytime you issue more than $10 million in a calendar year, the bonds become non-bank qualified. From a bank's perspective the bonds are not as attractive to buy because they can't write off the interest cost so you tend to pay a little higher interest rate for bonds that are not bank qualified.

This is all very interesting because now the rubber hits the road. The devil is in the details. Citizens voted yes on the cost of $115 million for construction. The train is leaving the station. After 2nd reading next Monday, publication of the ordinance and 20 days after publication (referendum period), they will move forward to authorize the execution of the contracts and documents to close the transaction. Issuance of the bonds will occur in mid to late January 2012. That's when we will all know just how much that $115 million construction loan will actually cost long term.

City Council's Internal Audit Function

2011-11-18T08:18:00.000-06:00

The Argus Leader article regarding the City Clerk function also addressed the City Council's internal audit function. "Rich Oksol, the city’s lead internal auditor, suggested that it might be time to make some changes in the charter that guides the city’s internal audit unit. That unit was formed five years ago following revelations that the administration had spent money not appropriated by the council."

City Charter, Section 2.10 Independent audit states:

The city council shall provide for an independent annual audit of all city accounts and may provide for more frequent audits as it deems necessary. Such audits shall be made by a certified public accountant or firm of such accountants who have no personal interest, direct or indirect, in the fiscal affairs of the city government or any of its officers. The council may, without requiring competitive bids, designate such accountant or firm annually or for a period not exceeding three years, but the designation for any particular fiscal year shall be made no later than 120 days before the expiration of such fiscal year. If the state makes such an audit, the council may accept it as satisfying the requirements of this section.

There is no reference to the "city's internal audit unit" in City Charter. Actually, this section specifically addresses an annual audit or any other other audits deemed necessary performed by an outside independent audit firm.

City Ordinance, Chapter 2, Article II, Sec. 2-54. Department of finance states:

(a) There is hereby created for the city a department of finance.

(b) The department of finance shall be managed and directed by the city finance officer, who shall be appointed as provided by the charter, and who shall file a bond in the amount of $250,000.00.

(c) The city finance officer shall perform all the duties of the city auditor and city treasurer, as provided by law in the South Dakota Codified Laws and in the ordinances of the city.

(d) All references made in the South Dakota Codified Laws and the City Code to the city auditor and city treasurer shall be construed to mean the city finance officer.

City Ordinance, Chapter 2, Article XIII Audit Committee, Section 2-133 states:

The committee shall annually develop an audit program for the ensuing year. The audit program will be submitted to the city council for approval. The committee shall be authorized to hire an independent lead auditor as necessary. The lead auditor will report to the chair of the audit committee with a secondary reporting responsibility to the city clerk. Audit reports will be reviewed by the committee and subsequently shall be submitted to the mayor and the city council. The audit committee shall approve annual audit protocols for the auditors. The committee shall also receive reports from the auditors and shall make recommendations to the mayor and city council of changes in the city's financial practices.

The fact is City Charter does not guide the city's internal audit unit. City Ordinance, specifically Chapter 2 Administration guides the Council's Audit Committee who oversees the lead auditor. There is no reference to an "internal audit unit." Actually, City Charter states the city finance officer shall perform all the duties of the city auditor, not the Council's Audit Committee or the Lead Auditor position under the city council organization.

Here again, similar to the evolution of the "city clerk position" the internal audit unit has evolved and grown in duties and functions. It certainly seems that the City Charter is in conflict with city ordinance regarding the city's audit function and the council's internal audit unit.

Maybe that's area for the new Charter Revision Commission to research and address as a matter of business when they convene in the future. There appears to be a conflict between the City Charter and City ordinance.

City Council's City Clerk

2011-11-17T09:45:00.000-06:00

The City Council is trying to decide what they want their City Clerk position to be by forming ad hoc committee. The article in the Argus Leader failed to identify who was on this ad hoc committee. I suppose one could assume the working committee is made up of city staff and councilors but the point is, no one knows.

The council staff positions have always been a kind of contentious issue since the change of government. City Charter sets out a clear delineation between the mayor and the administration and the city council. Where the city clerk was clearly the official record keeper for all city government functions, the change to a City Charter set apart the mayor/administration and city council functions and placed the city clerk function clearly with the city council.

City Charter and City Ordinance still identify the City Clerk as the record keeper of all meeting and other documents and reports of the city.

City Charter, Section 2.08 City Clerk, states:

The city council shall appoint an officer of the city who shall have the title of city clerk. The city clerk shall give notice of council meetings to its members and the public, keep the minutes of its proceedings and perform such other duties as are assigned by this charter or by the council or by state law.

City Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section 2-34:

All personnel, functions, and financial responsibility for operations of the office of the city clerk are assigned to the city council.

City Ordinance, Chapter 2, Sec. 2-24. Reports and resolutions to be filed with city clerk.

All reports and resolutions of departments, authorities, boards, committees, commissions, districts, and similar organizations shall be filed with the city clerk and referenced in the minutes.

The City Clerk position has evolved over time. Although the previous city clerk incumbent, Debra Owen had a law degree, the minimum qualifications for the position does not require a law degree. In addition, the position is currently titled City Clerk/Chief of Council Operations. Out of 14 task descriptions, only a couple tasks specifically address the official recording keeping function as outlined in Charter and City Ordinance.

The City Council changes membership through the election cycle and each election cycle brought elected officials with differing views on what the city clerk function should be. The position has become much more than just a recorder keeper of city official documents. With the expanded chief of operations role, there has come controversay and contention.

The City Clerk function serves a function that affects all city government functions, not just the City Council. The administration needs to work with the City Clerks regarding the scheduling of official documents on city council agendas. All records, reports and documents produced by the adminstration must be filed with the City Clerk. City Charter and City Ordinance is clear as to the role of the City Clerk.

The "Chief of Council Operations" duties are entirely different. These functions specifically serve the inner working of the city council and is separate and distinct from the mayor's administration.

Maybe it's time to separate the two functions and create two very distinct positions. If that had been addressed before, maybe the controversay over Debra Owen could have been averted and all the drama associated with this position can finally be put to rest.

I Have My Eyes on You!

2011-11-16T15:47:00.000-06:00

A little mischief out at the airport terminal it seems. This picture was on the ArgusPoliblog as well as floating around on Facebook.

You have to admit that it is funny. I am sure the mayor is not too happy about it. The thing is that when you put yourself way out there, day in and day out like the mayor does, this kind of thing is bound to happen. The mayor is everywhere. Hence, the big googly eyes? It is kind of amazing that the airport personnel didn't catch this "defacing" of our fearless leader as they walked about the halls of the terminal.

I heard he got up at the diversity seminar the other day and talked about his difficult upbringing again, growing up with an alcoholic father and that he cried. He has obviously overcome adversity growing up as he is a successful businessman and mayor of the largest city in South Dakota. But really, how many times do we have to hear this story with tears? The story was OK when you wanted everyone to know who you were and where you came from when you were running for office. I say move on, Mayor. You accomplished your biggest campaign promise - to get the event center built. It's the future, not the past that is going to impress people.

We all have our googly eyes on you!

The Future of Downtown Development - What's Next?

2011-11-14T15:15:00.000-06:00

With the event center decision behind us, we can now look forward to the mayor's previously stated commitment to Downtown Sioux Falls with hopefully the same energy put forth in his event center campaign. The question is: What's Next, Mayor, for Downtown Sioux Falls?

The city's official website under the Community Development Department says this about Downtown Sioux Falls:

Downtown is the City’s center for business, finance, government, arts, culture, and historic architecture, offering a richly diverse range of dining, shopping, lodging, housing, education and entertainment opportunities. A prosperous, safe, attractive, well-maintained destination with easy access and convenient parking, downtown Sioux Falls is an especially inviting place to live, work and play.

Downtown is the heart of Sioux Falls, serving as the main element defining the City’s image. The number of jobs downtown are expanding, making it one of the city’s largest employment centers. New residential units are being added and are among the most sought-after housing in Sioux Falls. Downtown continues to serve as the governmental, business, and financial center of the city, and these roles continue to grow.

Continuing to thrive and prosper, Downtown is seeing new buildings constructed, underutilized properties redeveloped and historic buildings rehabilitated due, in part to the City of Sioux Falls offering incentives that effectively stimulate private reinvestment and ensure development is competitive to that of other areas within the city.

Due to its unique heritage, historic architecture and great diversity of culture, social, art, entertainment and educational opportunities, downtown is a popular destination for both residents and visitors alike. Parking is convenient and available, bike and pedestrian circulation is expanding, and the hub of the public transit system maintains its central location – all downtown.

Abundant parks, landscaping, continued integration with the Big Sioux River and Falls Park and the special consideration that developers give to utilizing quality materials and attractive building design all create a visually stimulating and aesthetically pleasing downtown. Additionally, investment and care are being devoted to maintaining and increasing sidewalks, streetscaping, outdoor art, and public spaces.

Downtown is increasingly known as a center of fun, festivals, activity and excitement, with a reputation as the place where something wonderful is always happening. It is the place to go to enjoy arts, culture and major performances.

Back in 2001, the City Council, by resolution, established an 11 member Downtown Plan Taskforce. The Taskforce was charged with the responsibility of preparing a long-range plan for the future growth and & development of the central business district.

Eleven citizens were appointed to the 2015 Downtown Plan Taskforce in early 2002. The eleven citizens were:

Jake Anderson
Paul Boerboom
Tom Bosch
Pam Breidenbach
Julie Choudek
Cathy Clark
Dick Dempster
James Echols
Craig Hagen
Susan Hainje Hauff
Marv Looby

Interesting to note - Darrin Smith, the current Director of Community Development/Public Parking Facilities was a member of that City Council at the time this taskforce was created.

This taskforce worked with the City Planning Department and the City Planning Commission and liaisons with the Minnehaha County Planning Director and the Executive Director of Main Street Sioux Falls. The result of their work was the Sioux Falls 2015 Downtown Plan. This plan needs updating. A new taskforce needs to be appointed to keep Downtown moving forward.

There are many things that have been accomplished since this plan was completed. There is much more to be done in terms of vision for the future, such as:

River Greenway Corridor
Public Parking Ramps ( first one to replace the River Ramp demolition)
Eastbank Redevelopment (east bank of the Big Sioux River between East 6th and East 10th Streets extending eastward to Weber Ave - an area of more than 45 acres.)
Northend Redevelopment (land adjoining both sides of North Main Avenue and extending eastward to include properties that front Phillips to the Falls extension of Phillips Avenue from 5th Street to about 1st Street.)
Southeast Redevelopment (Part of this area is within the established central business district while the rest lies just outside the current downtown boundaries - generally located between 11th & 14 Streets and between First and Third Avenues.)
Railroad Relocation
Uptown Project
Possible amphitheater

It's time for the mayor and city council to appoint a new downtown plan taskforce to complete the plan and vision for the Sioux Falls Downtown area. There are many leaders/citizens in the community who joined the Build It Downtown campaign in the early stages of the event center debate who would be more than willing to serve on a new Downtown Plan Task Force. The mayor could go a long way in reaching out to this group whose underlying philosophy is that a strong downtown makes the entire city of Sioux Falls healthy.

After all, as the city's own website says, Downtown is the heart of Sioux Falls, serving as the main element defining the city's image.

When Your Body Decides to Checkmate

2011-11-13T13:24:00.000-06:00

Every so often I get a punch that reminds me that life can be a fragile thing. I have an electrical problem in my heart that appeared rather suddenly in 2004 resulting in a four and a half day in the hospital. It's called atrial fibrillation which is a pretty common thing but when it gets way out of control and the heart just won't cooperate by converting on its own in a relative period of time, it's a problem. I suppose there were signs before then where I kind of ignored the fluttering symptoms. Fluttering is one thing, but when your heart goes out of rhythm and stays that way, it creates a ripe environment for a stroke. I have been hospitalized when my heart doesn't convert on it's own. My Dad has atrial fib. I have it and it is irritating. I'm one of the lucky ones because I always know when I get out of sync. I can feel it. I also know when I am going to need outside help.

Actually, I have been doing great since 2007. That was the last time I had to be admitted for it. Drugs can do wonderful things and various drug therapies have worked for periods of time. The first drug therapy worked from 2004 to 2007. The second drug therapy worked good until now. Boom, I had two episodes last week that reminded me this is no minor thing.

I am a stubborn person. I try to get these issues under control on my own, usually holding out hope that my heart will quit being so stupid and cooperate. I actually believe I can control it. So, I usually wait 45 minutes to an hour before I tell my sister we should probably haul ass to the ER. Her usual response is to get very irritated with me and wants to call an ambulance. To me that is just an over reaction and a waste of money. I worry that I will know those first responders, the firefighters, and it will be embarrassing. I figure by the time we call for ambulance we can be on the interstate on our way to the hospital. I hate the thought of the expense to the city's health fund. I know what a ride in an ambulance costs. It's the old HR experience with me hearing the cha ching sound as the money falls out of the fund. You see, I am a retiree and I know what retirees cost the health fund.

The first episode occurred on November 3rd and a visit to the Heart Hospital ER. My sister drove me and I made her sit out in the parking lot with me until I was sure I couldn't make that damn heart go back in sync. I finally gave up and went in. I always worry that they will tell me I am not really in full blown atrial fib. Luckily I converted with drugs about 3 and a half hours later and went home. Things were not right all week after that but I just thought the old ticker was trying to settle down into its routine.

Nope, it needed to do a checkmate. Something happened that was worse than the normal atrial fibrillation problem. Something called ventricular tachycardia that scared the beejeebies out of me. I actually thought I was going to die this time. I barely made it into the ER on my own steam without passing out. I waited about two hours this time because the thought of going back to the ER less than a week later seemed obscene to me. Much to my chagrin, the same ER nurse was there again. I said to him, "don't you ever go home?" All of sudden there were many people in the room with him. Different than a week ago. My initial EKG was very different this time. My ER friend patted my arm and said, "this causes death so I am glad we caught it on your EKG." No going home this time, I got a ride upstairs to the heart floor.

This was no normal atrial fib episode. A referral to a cardiologist specializing in electrophysiology came next. A hospital stay that lasted 4 days. Good grief. All I heard was lectures from my sister, my son, my brother, you get the picture, about calling for an ambulance. Yea, Yea, we will see next time. The thing is I know, you know? They are responding this way because they are afraid. My poor sister, all she kept saying on the interstate was - don't pass out on me. I feel bad about that, but not bad enough to call for an ambulance.

You have to find humor in all this. I sent a friend an email and told him the vote caused me to go to the heart hospital. You can about imagine the response I got. No, the vote didn't cause a heart attack. I may have been against the event center, but trust me, in the scheme of things, the vote results was just another day in river city.

You see, everything is relative. But when your body gives you a checkmate - now that is something to take seriously. I am fine and ready to blog another day. No way, am I done. I am just beginning.

Checkmate!!!

The Important Deciding Vote - The People

2011-11-09T09:39:00.000-06:00

It's over. Sioux Falls will be getting a new 12,000 seat event center that is estimated to bring over $36 million dollars annually to this community. I look forward to the boost in our economy and the results of the efforts of the Chamber of Commerce, Sioux Falls Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Sports Authority, the Sioux Falls Development Foundation, SMG, and Global Spectrum to bring the big events, trade shows and conventions to Sioux Falls. I hope they can make good on all their promises. The success of the Events Center depends on it.

People were engaged in this debate and the voter turnout indicates that people care about this city. It was an impressive turnout and everyone, no matter which side you were on in this debate should be congratulated, not scorned, for standing up for their convictions. Democracy isn't always pretty. But on any issue important to citizens, you need debate, opinions, and commentary in which to make an informed decision when you go to the ballot box.

This community was engaged in the debate. I am not regretful in getting involved in this community debate after many years of having to be publically neutral on issues facing the city of Sioux Falls. Getting involved means commitment. Publically taking a position and attaching your name to it means conviction for one's beliefs. Getting involved, commitment and conviction no matter which side you were on does not make you a loser. It makes you an involved citizen.

The mayor has fulfilled his vision and commitment to get an event center built and I congratulate him on his victory. He says he is committed to developing and further promoting the downtown area and if the achievement attained yesterday for the arena area is any indication, we should expect he will work hard to meet that promise and vision as well.

What Will Be, Will Be

2011-11-08T17:16:00.000-06:00

I spent the past 25 years of my professional career in city government, working with other visionaries who planned big things for the city. I used to be troubled by those naysayers in the community who I thought always were against a big idea, against progress and growth. So the irony of my position on this event center is not lost on me. However, this position of mine was not based on being against progress or a vision for the future. I just didn't believe this plan was the right plan at this time.

You could not go anywhere these past few months without the event center topic coming up. This community is engaged and it is exciting. We are going to have a voter turnout that is unprecedented. No matter the outcome, citizens have finally become active in matters that matter in their community.

I was talking to a young person at the Augustana Football game last weekend and he said he was voting yes because he couldn't stand the idea that an event center may not be built in his lifetime or for decades to come. He didn't care if it really didn't make sense, he just wanted it built.

My thought was he was too young to be so pessimistic about the future and the ability for this city to make big things happen. It is an emotional position, not necessarily based on any facts or fiscal reality. It is not surprising since that is what was sold through the endless commercials and glossy flyers. Emotions are powerful in this debate. Big money has been spent to sell the vision.

It's almost over. Hopefully we all can move on, whatever the outcome this evening. If it passes, it will have fiscal implications on this city for decades to come. What will be, will be.

Crossing the Line

2011-11-08T10:08:00.000-06:00

Last night on election eve, a number of people stood before the City Council to offer public testimony regarding the Event Center debate. One of the people testifying before the Council was a person who was in opposition to the Event Center. This person is an ordinary citizen who chose to become educated and engaged in this very important issue for Sioux Falls.

He woke up this morning to find unsolicitied Build It Now Vote Yes signs in his front yard and on the city right of way:

This is clear trespassing on private property. It is also interesting to note that this person has an unlisted address. Signs placed secretly in the dead of night. Petty, immature, childish behavior on behalf of the Vote Yes crowd. Obviously, they had some left over signs they didn't want to go to waste. This behavior speaks volumes for the professionalism of this group.

The Right Vision for Sioux Falls?

2011-11-06T15:31:00.000-06:00

A Guest Post by Kevin Nyberg, reposted from Build It Downtown Facebook page:

Just like over 2,000 of you, I joined this Facebook Group because of its
mission and vision for the city of Sioux Falls. Tuesday's election will
decide if this vision stays alive or vanishes forever. We still have hope
if this plan fails. To me that hope represents the best vision for Sioux
Falls for decades to come.

I have not heard much about the future of marketing our city during this
campaign. Marketing is just not about conventions. I believe we have more
financial opportunities in attracting and focusing on visitors to our city
than conventions. How do we want our city to be marketed in the future?
How do we want to be remembered as a city?

Well, if you haven't driven downtown between 6th and 8th streets and viewed
the new Downtown Riverfront Greenway I suggest you do so. And take your
friends and family before Tuesday's election. This project along with many
other Downtown announcements (Raven's facelift, Hilton Garden Inn), recently
should give obvious reason to why we are not focusing on the one resource,
the river, that could make our city stand out and be remembered by visitors
for decades to come!

Yes, I know location is not what we are voting on Tuesday, but there are
dozens of other reasons why the current plan is not acceptable and should not be approved. You have heard them all, but the two that stand out to me is a flawed financial plan and an economy that is
unstable and unknown at this time.

I grew up in Sioux Falls and have witnessed many city elections. This one
will be remembered for years to come. It has been a long campaign that
started out with a divided city council and now a divided electorate. In
my opinion no other election in our city's history has seen more drama than
this one.

Sioux Falls we can do better than the proposed plan! As some proponents of
the plan suggest, "we will go backwards or become a second class city if
this proposal fails." These are desperate comments and simply not true of
the Sioux Falls I know.

We can do better Sioux Falls! If you believe like me, please encourage your
family and friends to vote NO.

Priorities

2011-11-05T09:54:00.000-05:00

All you have to do is look at the headlines and then wonder about priorities in this community.

Lewis and Clark Federal Funding in Jeopardy
Tobacco Revenue Down.
10% Cut in Teacher Salaries
Banquet Food Supplies Dwindle
Video Lottery Revenue Down
46% of school age children eligible for free or reduced school lunches in Sioux Falls
Education funding cut
South Dakota population aging yet South Dakota first froze then cut Medicaid payments to nursing homes.
For the first time in nearly two years, the overall Business Conditions Index for a nine-state region of the Midwest and Plains has taken a negative turn.
Decline in out-of-state residents moving to the area blamed partly on the economy.
Construction spending in the United States was down 1.3 percent in September compared with September 2010, down $10 Billion for the year, according to the Associated General Contractors of America.
Two Minnehaha County towns will reduce the number of hours they contract for sheriff protection because money isn’t available to pay for more service.
A long standing Sioux Falls manufacturing company will close for good early next year, resulting in 77 jobs cuts.
Minnehaha County has budget problems.
Many consumers are anxious about their jobs; angry about their salaries and increased workloads; upset about climbing health care costs; and worried about their mortgages.
Minnehaha County employees take a 5% pay cut.
Sioux Area Metro Transit facing possible federal subsidy shortfall.

Stamping Out the Opposition

2011-11-04T12:40:00.000-05:00

You would have to be living under a rock not to know about the Event Center vote on November 8th. Clearly this community is engaged in the debate and it isn't very pretty or polite anymore. What keeps popping up over and over again are the great justifications for building it now.

1. We have talked about it for 10 years, we just need to build it now.
2. Costs continue to go up, so we need to build it now.
3. The interest rates are low, we just need to build it now.
4. We will never agree on a location, time, or financing, we just need to build it now.
5. The economy is picking up, we just need to build it now.
6. The Black Eyed Peas passed us up because the Arena wasn't up to their standards.

I don't think there is anyone in the community who really believes the Arena is a satisfactory concert venue. It is outdated, uncomfortable, with poor acoustics. This city needs a new concert center. Even the people in opposition to the current plan know that. The disagreement is how to get it done and get it done right. The mayor has his plan. He has the bully pulpit and the money to get out his message out to the masses. The opposition has used blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and a small organization with one speaker and no money. It is truly a David and Goliath scenario.

People are right, we have talked about the concept of building an event center for the past 10 years but there has never been the depth of discussion and debate until now. We have the mayor to thank for bringing it to this discussion and debate stage. The problem is the discussion and debate came after the mayor decided it was my way or the highway event center plan. Discussion closed. Debate over. Vote yes and if you don't, you have no vision, are backward thinkers and just want to hurt the mayor and make it personal.

Now, people who are vocal in opposition to the mayor's plan are being intimidated into silence, told to be quiet on Facebook, be careful what you say publicly because your reputation is on the line. Threats, intimidation and bullying is no way to win the debate. This thing may pass, but at what cost? The split in this community is unpalatable.

Life in River City is Good? The Vote is Still No!

2011-11-03T10:02:00.001-05:00

The big press is on with only 4 days before election day on the event center. Today, Tracy Turbak-City Finance Director has a voices column in the Argus Leader telling citizens that the construction of the event center will financed in the same manner as other significant investments of the city like the Law Enforcement Center, Harmodon Park, main library expansion, etc. That is true, the second penny sales tax is used to fund construction of major investments. However, not to the tune of the investment of this event center and not for 23 years.

I appreciate the fact that the city says we can afford to take on this debt. The city has always been in good financial condition and we have elected and city officials to thank for that. However, when they talk about obligating the 2nd penny sales tax for construction costs for 23 years, I wish they would also acknowledge that that same 2nd penny sales will have fund any ongoing maintenance and infrastructure needs that will occur over the life of this construction debt.

Tracy Turbak goes on to say the event center operating budget is be funded by revenues generated by the operation of the event center and revenues from private sources in the form of naming rights, sponsorships and premium seating. He states "Superlative Group, Inc. determined the city could reasonably expect to derive private annual revenues in the range of $975,000 to $1.875 million." These revenues will be used to help fund the day to day operating budget of the event center and are "largely the reason the events center has been projected to operate in the black."

I wish the city would also address the fact that we will have to fund two event centers and that the Arena is not going away. Two event centers competing for the same type of events, just on a different scale. Why is that absent from this discussion of the big picture?

The fact is no one can "reasonably expect" the event center will operate in the black, not even the company hired to by the city to evaluate the Sioux Falls market. Not even the mayor and the finance director. You can hope it will, you can "reasonable expect" it will, but when all the other "event/convention center" facilities don't operate in the black in the Sioux Falls market or in other cities and markets, it is kind of hard to "reasonably expect" the Event Center will operate in the black. I would actually feel more confidence in their whole plan if they would just admit some of this instead of their pie in the sky, the city is right with the world mentality.

This voices column is timed to assure the public not to worry, we can afford to do this. At the same time, the mayor has informed his mid-management people that they will be getting a 2% raise in 2012 by memo dated November 3rd. Some city employees haven't had a raise in 2 years or more. Nice news for city employees, I think they deserve a modest raise. But after two years of being told to slash your budgets and no money for raises because benefits costs are too high and the economy was bad, the timing of this good news message seems pretty suspect - 4 days before the election. Votes!!!

Local TV's Special Reports

2011-11-01T17:14:00.000-05:00

It appears the local TV stations have decided they finally need to get in the education game regarding the Event Center debate. KELO TV is dedicating an hour long special election edition of Inside Keloland on the subject. The planned guests are Huether, Turbak, Jamison & Barclay. Frankly, I am tired of hearing from this group and their same old, same old.

I have often wondered where all those business people in the community are who stood up at the press conference announcing the new Build It Now group and campaign. There are some heavy hitters in that group who would have made a strong voice in support of the campaign to convince voters to vote yes. Afterall, they were committed enough to stand up, give money and their public support to building the event center.

Build It Now Co-Chairs
Alan Amdahl
President of the Home Builders Association of the Sioux Empire
Owner of Amdahl Construction
Nicki Ellerbroek
Owner of McNally’s Traditional Irish Pub
Dr. Dave Kapaska, Regional President
Avera McKennan Hospital
Tom Kelley
President of Gage Brothers Concrete
Dr. Charles Pat O’Brien, President – Sanford USD Medical Center
Sanford Health
Mike Sullivan
Executive Director of the Sioux Falls Sports Authority

Why aren't some of these people guests for KELO's special programming? Why aren't these people out in the community doing some of the presentations?

The Build It Now website says: "Build It Now Sioux Falls supporters are a cross-section of the Sioux Falls community, including local individuals, large and small businesses, and organizations that see value in bringing a new Events Center to Sioux Falls."

It would have been nice to hear from some of these people at all the event center presentations since this is the group that put the money up to lobby the citizens to vote for their vision of the value of bringing the event center to Sioux Falls. These business people have been noticeably absent from these presentations.

Instead, all we will get is the same old tired song and dance and maybe a little intimidation and insincerity towards poor Mr. Barclay and Councilor Jamison.

Hello, I Am Calling on Behalf of Build It Now

2011-10-31T19:28:00.000-05:00

Vernon Brown posted this message on Facebook:

I just received a call on behalf of Build It Now asking for my support. She emphasized no new taxes, no raised taxes.
-I asked her if Sioux Falls could raise taxes. She didn't know.
-I asked her the cost of construction. She didn't know.
-I asked her how much the city had to borrow to do the project. She didn't know.
-I asked her what the projected interest rate might be. She didn't know.
-Finally, I asked her what the annual debt service might be. She didn't know.
Amazing.

This isn't the first time I have heard about the lack of knowledge coming from a Build It Now caller. I wonder if these callers are even local people.

The prudent thing to do is at least have the basic information about the project you are representing so you can answer the basic questions about the event center you are representing. The depth of this message is a message in and of itself, good folks of Sioux Falls. Don't be confused with the facts, just Build It Now. Worry about the debt and how to operate it later.

Do We Need Two Event Venues?

2011-10-30T12:23:00.000-05:00

Everybody has brought up just about everything when discussing whether this city needs to build an event center or not. Finances, revenues, build it and people will come, location, parking, chairs and pottys. What no one has specifically addressed is that with the building of a new event center, we will still have the Arena.

The Sunday Argus Leader Editorial stated:

The most compelling reasons to vote yes - and vote yes enthusiastically - are interrelated.

"First, practically, this city desperately needs a modern multi-use facility to host concerts, trade shows, conventions and sporting events. The Arena has served Sioux Falls well for more than half a century, but it no longer meets the needs - by any standard - of a city of 155,000 and metro area exceeding 225,000. More critical: It is woefully inadequate for a Sioux Falls of the next 10, 20 and 30 years."

Two operational budgets, two facilities competing for events, sports teams, trade shows, additional floor space for the convention center. Why isn't tearing down this event venue part of the mayor's plan if it is so" woefully inadequate?"

The Arena is not being torn down. The city is dedicating 2nd penny sales tax in the capital program to upgrade the Arena. The 2012-2016 Mayor's Recommended Capital Plan has programmed over $2.4 million in Arena Building Improvements to be paid for by the Entertainment Tax. The same tax that is going to be used as a contingency to subsidize the operating costs of the Event Center in addition to paying for operating/capital improvement needs of the Washington Pavilion, Convention Center, Orpheum and the Great Plains Zoo and Delbridge Museum. The city just spent approximately half a million dollars upgrading the electronic scoreboard at the Arena.

"Second, building an events center will represent an enormous symbolic victory for those who believe, correctly, that a city not moving forward is moving backward. Even more importantly, it would send a powerful message to those who oppose any vision for the future, no matter what reason they cite at the moment."

Building a second event center will represent an enormous symbolic victory? The city does not need to vote yes in order to give the mayor a symbolic victory to prove he and his supporters are the only ones who are moving this city forward, not backward. This statement is preposterous and totally discounts and insults those public officials and others in the community who just don't believe this plan will work. To say no, does not mean one is backward, has no vision for the future. This isn't about sending a powerful message, this is about what is good for Sioux Falls and its future.

The question remains - Does this city need two event venues competing with each other for revenues, events, entertainment tax funds for operating and capital improvements and vistors? Maybe the economic strength of a new event center is that it is the only event center in the city.

Event Center Operational Budget

2011-10-28T12:47:00.000-05:00

The operating budget for an events center, as proposed, essentially hinges on two aspects: tenants (which drive visitors/revenue) and private funding (which will help offset other expenses related to running the buildings). The already obligated Entertainment Tax is proposed to be used as a contingency for operating costs of the new Events Center if revenues aren't sufficient.

We have seen estimates from the consultants hired by the city. They are estimates, not reality. Reality is a proven track record. If someone could tell us one event facility that has operated in the black consistently since built then maybe we could believe in these "revenue estimates" for the event center. You can read about event centers all over the country that aren't making it and which require a subsidy from their governmental body. That is a fact, not an estimate, not a promise, not a forecast based on growth.

So what happens if this new Events Center doesn't make money and/or the private funding is not sufficient?

The recommendation is for one management company to run all three facilities. If the combined three facilities (Event Center, Convention Center, Arena) require city subsidy, the proposal is to use the entertainment tax.

The entertainment tax generates approximately $5 million/year. This tax also funds the current operating subsidies for the Washington Pavilion and Convention Center, in addition to capital improvements for both buildings (new exhibits for the Pavilion, carpet for the Convention Center, etc). Some of the $5 million will free up in 2014 when bonds are paid off. But, the city has also proposed expanding the use of the entertainment tax to include the current Arena, Orpheum Theater, Great Plains Zoo and Delbridge Museum and now the Event Center.

All of these facilities have equipment and other capital needs and all have required operational support from the city. In addition, they all are aging. Any other improvements/expansions of any of these facilities would also come from the entertainment tax. There have been identified needed improvements to the Arena, a recommended expansion of the Convention Center from the 2008 task force and a significant master plan that the City Council has endorsed for the Great Plains Zoo. Will those be put on hold or not done at all if the entertainment tax is needed to subsidize the Event Center operational budget in the future?

The city is obligating the 2nd penny sales tax for 22 years to construct/build the Event Center. The city has outlined what those annual debt payments will be until 2033. That's all anyone is talking about it. This project is more than just constructing it. You need money to operate it.

It's the annual operating expenses that people should worry about because without tenants which drive visitors and revenues, and significant and sustained private funding forever, it is probably a good bet that there will be a need for a city subsidy sometime in the future of the Event Center. To promise the event center will operate in the black due to event mix guesstimates, forecasted revenues, and promises of private funding is just plain irresponsible.

The 2nd penny sales tax will fund the construction through a 22 year debt obligation. The Entertainment Tax will need to subsidize the operating and capital improvement expenses of this event center. Those are two facts to remember when voting on November 8th.

Councilors Jamison, Brown spell out “Ten Things You Should Know Before You Vote November 8th” on events center

2011-10-27T17:33:00.000-05:00

In a news conference this morning, Sioux Falls City Councilors Greg Jamison and Vernon Brown outlined “Ten Things You Should Know Before You Vote November 8^th.”

Their goal is to make sure voters can make an informed decision on the current events center proposal. Both are concerned that key pieces of information are not being fairly presented to voters.

1. This Vote is About Funding Priorities – streets, fire stations, parks, libraries, transit OR an events center. Whatever we spend on an events center’s principle and interest payment is money that will NOT go to future streets, fire stations, parks, libraries or the transit system because the events center will be funded from the same limited source – our second penny sales tax. It’s also concerning that there’s no fund identified to pay for the ongoing maintenance of the facility.

2. Consider What Cuts You Would Make - If Sioux Falls built the events center five years ago and we started making the full loan payments of $9 million, we would need to cut some of the projects we’re completing this year. For example we would have had to consider cutting projects such as:

· 10th & Cliff intersection for $1.8 million

· 41^st street overlay for $1 million

· Reconstruction of 57^th to Tea Ellis road for $2.5 million

· And reconstruction of River Boulevard for $3 million

3. Construction Costs Are Going up on All Projects – It’s not just the events center price tag that will go up. The cost of all critical city construction projects is likely to go up. So again it comes back to priorities for Sioux Falls. What investments do you want us to make right now.

4. No New Taxes for Events Center Because We Can’t - Like almost all South Dakota cities, Sioux Falls is at the maximum tax level allowed by state law. We can’t raise taxes because it’s against the law. All the money is coming from one source - the 2^nd penny sales tax we’ve reserved for streets, fire stations, libraries, transit and other projects.

5. We’re Not Replacing the Arena - The Arena stays in play. The events center is an additional building at that complex, but there is no new planned re-use of the existing Arena. We will be competing with ourselves and will have to maintain both venues with taxpayer dollars. Plus, we have identified critical improvements to the Arena, but not identified funding to take care of it.

6. The Parking Plan Doesn’t Consider Multiple Events – The plan does not consider simultaneous events at the events center, Arena, Convention Center, Pheasants Stadium and Howard Wood Field. The parking plan is designed for a single event at the events center.

7. How Will Sioux Falls Pay For Population Growth – Experts predict our city will grow at the rate of three-thousand people a year – that’s 8 people a day. That means more houses, streets, fire stations, libraries, parks and other infrastructure will be needed – much of which is funded out of the second penny sales tax. But the plan is counting on sales tax growth paying for the evenst center debt for the next 22 years. Plus we have Master Plans for Falls Park, the River Greenway and the zoo and there’s not enough funding in the Capital Improvement Plan to complete those plans.

8. We’re Borrowing 100% of the Money – Construction costs will be $115 million, but we will have to borrow $125 million to cover the issuance cost of bonds. We will be borrowing every dime of it – no down payment. It also means we’ll be paying $60 to $70 million in interest expense.

9. We Do Not Have One Tenant Signed – Not one semi-pro athletic team has signed an agreement to use the facility. And if they do, that means the Arena loses rent. Now the primary tenants are identified as big conventions, conferences, and tradeshows. In 2010 these events represented only 16 percent of the event mix of the convention center.

10. We Can Create a Better Plan – November 8th is not your last chance for an event center. If you decide you’re not comfortable with $125 million dollars of debt, we can work together to create a more affordable plan for Sioux Falls so you can comfortably vote YES. Jamison and Brown offer two ideas.

· Arena Replacement Fund - The Council could set aside money each year to build up to a 10 to 15 percent down payment on our entertainment venue to help lower interest expense.

· Strive to make existing subsidized entertainment venues self sustaining - Work with the Arena, Pavilion, Zoo, Orpheum Theater and Convention Center to acquire naming rights so tax dollars don’t subsidize them. Then we can be honest with voters by saying we can build a self sustaining event center in Sioux Falls.

· And then once the Pavilion and Convention Center are paid off and self sustaining the Entertainment Tax could help fund construction of a future events center.

Jamison and Brown tell voters not to let anyone convince them they’re not progressive or not supporting Sioux Falls’ future just because they can’t comfortably say yes to this vote. It’s OK to say they want a better plan.

People Expressing Themselves

2011-10-26T22:13:00.000-05:00

People express their feelings regarding a political topic through yard signs. Sometimes, although rare, the yard signs are hand made. Those homemade yard signs seem more significant because the person took their own initiative to share their opinion through a handmade sign. One voice speaks volumes.

However you feel about the Event Center plan, getting involved is a civic duty. Whether you vote yes or vote no, it still means you care about your city. You care enough to make a sign but more importantly, you care enough to tell the world where you stand on the issue.

Potty Parity and the Event Center

2011-10-25T22:57:00.000-05:00

Get ready for the potty parity news conference tomorrow. Instead of staking the city's credibility on the event center presentations being made throughout the city these past weeks, the city has to resort to what seems to be desperate measures to keep the event center plan before the public.

"When you buy a brand new home, you don't just look at the outside and say, 'Yep, I'm going to buy that thing.' You want to look at all the drawers; you want to look in all the closets. You want to make sure that it meets your needs," Huether said.

First we had to see the comparison between the old and new chairs. We got to see the cushy chairs for the "big spenders" and the scaled down models for the ordinary good folks of Sioux Falls. Now we are going to learn about the "potty chairs" and how they are different from the potty chairs in the Arena, I suppose.

Will we hear that there will be more pottys for the women in order to sway them to vote yes on November 8th? A promise of more pottys makes me want to vote yes - really? Along with the pottys, maybe we will be told that we will have upgraded toilet paper to go with those gleaming new pottys planned for the Event Center. Will we see the old potty from the Arena and the new potty planned for the Event Center?

The city needs to stay on point with what is really important to the vote on November 8th - the finance plan! If we don't get the finance plan right, it won't matter where we plant our kiesters, how many more pottys there will be or whether the seats/pottys will be cushioned or plastic, square or oblong.

October is Breast Cancer Month

2011-10-24T09:49:00.000-05:00

Pink is every where. It's October. It's a reminder that I don't really like although I understand the need to build awareness. Last Saturday, my nephew Sam wore pink shoelaces and pink stockings when he went out on the Augustanta football field in honor of his Aunt Pam. I want someone to conquer the disease.

I don't need a reminder. It kills. It killed my best friend in 1999. It broke my heart and took away a friend that filled my heart with love, kindness, thoughtfulness and friendship that was to endure through our retirement years. We grew up together in our twenties, raised our children together, spent every spare moment together and worked together at the telephone company in Virginia. We planned our retirement years. I don't need the month of October to remember her spirit or feel her loss as a friend. The loss is a forever feeling.

I live with the threat of breast cancer. My identical twin sister is a breast cancer survivor. We live her survival every day and when she goes in for her checkups we hold our breath that survival is still the word. Losing her to this disease would be like cutting off part of my body. I thought losing my friend to the disease was almost inconsolable but losing my twin sister to the disease would be catastrophic to my life as I know it.

We don't acknowledge or particpate in breast cancer walks and the like. My twin sister does not like being reminded that she had breast cancer. She says she lives it everyday. A walk in October is just another day with the disease. For others, the various events in the month of October provide peace and support. To each their own.

Her daughter and I talked her into getting a breast cancer survival ribbon tatoo on our right arms. She did it because we asked her to do it with us. We thought it was a show of our support. She hates that tatoo because she says everytime she looks at her arm, it is a reminder that she had breast cancer. She is thankful each year when she gets the thumbs up news that she is still cancer free. It is that little irritating thought that sits back in the subconscious that is a reminder. October is not seen as a month of celebration. Each day, each month, each year being cancer free is a celebration in and of itself for her.

When I go in for my yearly mammogram in November, I am once again reminded by the technician that I am at risk because my twin had breast cancer. I don't need a reminder. I live with a reminder, my sister. I need a cure. So I thank all those people who support breast cancer research through their donations and support. We each do what we can for the cause because the majority of us are touched by this disease one way or another.

Now Is Not the Time - Another Voice Against the Event Center Plan

2011-10-22T23:28:00.000-05:00

I wouldn't normally post a blog from another source but the blog posted by Joel Rosenthal, small businessman and volunteer political activist, bears sharing. Click on the link below and gain another common sense position on why this is not time to build an event center in Sioux Falls.

http://southdakotastraighttalk.blogspot.com/2011/10/not-time.html

Another voice from a person who is currently serving in a volunteer capacity as President of the Siouxland Library Board of Trustees. People who do not support the event center plan as proposed and presented to the voting public on November 8th care deeply about the community and are not the enemy of progress.

There is a right way to fund and build an event center. The plan before the voters on November 8th is not the right way. Let's Build It Right instead of Build It Now.

Big Vote Coming Up!

2011-10-22T11:08:00.000-05:00

The mayor has taken to the Internet to get his message out by email. His email message is to get out the vote. Oh yes, and he thanks his contacts for everything they do for our great city and yes, for him too. He is personally laying his political vision on the line for this event center vision of his through his personal email.

I would presume this email "advocacy" comes from his personal and campaign email addresses and not his official city email address. I wonder if he mined some contacts from those citizens who send him and the city emails on daily basis to his office of mayor or at the city's official website? Now that could be an "advocacy" issue.

From: Mike Huether <mhuether@sio.midco.net>
Date: October 22, 2011 6:56:10 AM CDT
To: Mike Huether <mhuether@sio.midco.net>
Subject: Big vote coming up.

Good morning everyone. As you know, there is a major vote coming up on November 8 about the proposed event center. I just wanted to encourage all of you to vote of course on this important topic for our great city. I would also love to have you help get out the vote by cheering on your family members, co-workers and friends to also get out there and vote. The future of Sioux Falls will be impacted in so many ways by this decision. Job creation, economic development, quality of life and so much more.

If any of you want to get involved in any way, let me know.

Thanks for all that you do for our great city and yes, for me!!!

Take care and make it a great day!!

Mike

Here is my message to you blog readers:

Good morning everyone! There is an important election taking place on November 8th that will have a profound impact on the future of Sioux Falls. The question before you is, it the time right to build it now? When you go to the ballot box on November 8th ask yourself this:

Do I believe the new event center will have an annual $40 million economic impact to the city?
Will the event center operating expenses be totally covered by private business or will it need ongoing subsidies from the Entertainment Tax and the city's general fund?
Can the city afford to take on 22 years of debt from the workhorse second penny sales tax that should be going to maintain and grow necessary infrastructure needs like streets, water and sewer in this economic downturn?
Does the fact that there is no major tenant anchoring this new facility bother you?
Do you believe in the promise of bigger events, more events and more conventions if we just build it now?
Do you believe "If we build it, jobs and revenue will come?"

If the answer is no to these questions, then the only clear way is to vote No on November 8th. We all care about our great city, even when we may disagree with the mayor.

South Dakota Isn't Heaven?

2011-10-21T19:29:00.000-05:00

I got a flyer in the mail today from the Build It Now group. It would seem the theme of the flyer is a take off on the 1989 drama/sports/fantasy film called "Field of Dreams." The movie is about a novice farmer, who while walking in his cornfield, hears a voice that whispers, "if you build it, he will come" and he sees a vision of a baseball diamond.

I guess, the mayor and his Build It Now companions like fantasy so much they had to adopt the fantasy film's theme of "build it and they will come" with the flyer stating "If you build it, jobs and revenue will come." There is nothing wrong with dreams and visions, but when one's dreams rely on fantasy numbers that are estimates and forecasts instead of reality and facts, one's fantasy is just that, a fantasy.

So, South Dakota is not heaven unless we build the event center? Poppycock! Don't hire this group to market tourism for the State of South Dakota. They said it's not heaven here. The flyer states Sioux Falls doesn't need an Economic Miracle. All we need is a structure that will generate economic activity to the tune of $40 million dollars of new economic impact a year.

Where does that $40 million come from? Fantasy makes for a great movie. $40 million dollars of new economic impact each year sounds like a fantasy without facts to support it.

Is building the event center now heaven? No, it's a fantasy.

Check Out Those Seats!

2011-10-21T09:07:00.000-05:00

So, the big news conference yesterday was to tell us the difference in the seats between the Arena and the new Event Center? It's very important that the public knows what it is buying so we need to look at the difference in where our butts are going to land and sit for a few hours.

"When you buy a brand new home, you don't just look at the outside and say, 'Yep, I'm going to buy that thing.' You want to look at all the drawers; you want to look in all the closets. You want to make sure that it meets your needs," Huether said.

Instead of worrying about the difference in the seats at the Arena versus the new Event Center, I submit we need to worry about the financing plan, both for construction and for operating the dang thing once built. The seats are the least of my concerns as a taxpayer.

Press Conferences from City Hall - ad nauseam!

The Big Push

2011-10-20T11:49:00.000-05:00

It appears, with less than 20 days to go, Build It Now is in full gear with their Vote Yes lobbying campaign. Big huge billboards are up, commercials on TV, robo calls and door hangers are the mode of communication. The mailings should be out soon. You can't put this kind of lobby effort together without big money behind it.

The mayor and his administration have also been putting on the big push with their constant news releases and "advocacy" presentations. The latest press conference is to tell us the difference between that old Arena and the new Event Center. I heard the objective was to get out a press release regarding the Event Center every 10 days or so.

We will see if big money can buy the election on November 8th. Why isn't there an announcement telling the voting public that the private money commitment is there to take care of the operating costs of the Event Center for the next 20 years? Who knows maybe that will be the last press announcement before the big vote.

I hope if big money wins this election for the mayor, they step up to the plate and put their money where it really will count - to pay for the operating expenses of the Event Center with their naming rights money and money to buy luxury suites and seats. Then the cheap seats can at least take comfort in the fact that they are paying the big bucks to keep the lights on and the bills paid.

I have to hand it to the mayor. He knows where the money is and knows how to use it to his advantage for the big push.

One Month Record Revenue for Convention Center

2011-10-19T11:43:00.000-05:00

Global Spectrum released a press announcement yesterday stating they recorded the second largest month of revenue since taking over in 2007. I guess one needs to toot one's horn even if it is only the 2nd largest revenue month in the last 4 years, especially with the Event Center vote coming up on November 8th.

I decided to take a look at the 2010 SFCC Annual Report. The report shows the event mix for 2010 as follows:

4% Trade Shows
5% Consumer Shows
7% Conventions
8% Special Events
28% Banquets
48% Meetings

It's an interesting mix of events considering conventions, trade shows and consumer shows only represent 16% of the event mix in 2010. The mayor says the the primary tenant of the event center will be the conventions, the conferences, the big events, trade shows. The power of that investment is going to need a big effort by Global Spectrum once it is built in 2014 to increase that 16% event mix.

But back to record revenues. The 2010 SFCC Annual Report illustrates 2010 Revenues and Expenses as follows:

2010 Total Actual Revenue: $3,055,936
2010 Total Actual Expenses: $3,592,047
Net Operating Income (Loss): ($536,111)

With adjustments (not sure what that means) their adjusted 2010 net operating income loss was reduced to ($509,513).

With losses in capital of $61,132 and a loss in other operating items of $460,225, the total 2010 SFCC expenditures was a loss of ($1,030,870).

The Convention Center's source of revenue from the city is the Entertainment Tax, concert ticket sales, and miscellaneous. In 2010 these revenue sources actually totaled $1,056,552 which was down $419,206 from the 2010 Budgeted amount.

They are going to need to up the revenues they produce because the entertainment tax is intended to be used as a contingency for operating subsidy to the new event center which would mean less money for the Convention Center, Washington Pavilion and the Great Plains Zoo and Delbridge Museum in the future.

Let's hope this record month means the convention center will operate in the black in 2011. The convention center needs more than one month of record revenues to pay for itself.

Convention Centers - The Power of This Investment?

2011-10-17T12:17:00.000-05:00

The Minneapolis Star Tribune had an interesting article about the Minneapolis Convention Center dismal financial prospects and the slashing of supervisory staff in half and placing all other staff on an on-call basis.

"The city has been spending as much to subsidize the center as it takes in because operating costs far exceed rents and other charges the facility reaps from conventions, trade shows and other events. The city spent more than $13 million in 2009 from special hospitality taxes it collects to subsidize the center."

Read this article and think about the event center proposal before the citizens of Sioux Falls on November 8th. The mayor, in a web interview with Argus Leader Sports Writer Stu Whitney stated that the primary tenants of the event center are not sports teams. He stated that the primary tenant will be the conventions, the conferences, the big events, trade shows. "That's the power of this investment," he stated.

I guess the power of that investment is not working so well for the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The fact that the Minneapolis Convention Center can't make a go of it certainly brings pause to the mayor's event center plan for Sioux Falls.

The Star Tribune article states: "Convention centers have been battered financially across the country, first by a post-9/11 drop in convention travel and then by the recession. Those factors affected Minneapolis just as it was opening a major expansion of the center. Centers nationally have been cutting costs and discounting rents."

As stated in a previous blog, these reasons why this event center plan is not right for today makes even more sense after reading what is happening to the Minneapolis Convention Center:

Ill conceived concepts of fiscal prosperity and promises of private funding that will save the taxpayer from having to subsidizing ongoing operating costs for decades and decades.

The promise that the financing plan to build it or operate it won't use property tax revenues and the 1st penny sales tax revenues but doesn't say never.

That the projection of $1.1 million to $2.5 million per year in positive revenue from event center activities and events will be generated for operating expenses.

That using the Entertainment Tax revenues as a contingency to cover operating expenses won't impact negatively on the needs of the Washington Pavilion, Orpheum and the Great Plains Zoo and Delbridge Museum

A projection of $36 million in new economic impact per year when there is talk of a recession next year and the economic climate is a slowdown that could last for another decade.

A promise of bigger events, more events and more simultaneous events when consumer confidence and spending is at an all time low.

I wish the power of this investment worked with the plan currently before the voters on November 8th. I really do. Reality is fact. We can't afford the power of investment that Minneapolis is facing today before the first first shovel of dirt is thrown. The economic climate does not project a rosy future.

The only sensible fiscal action is to vote no on November 8th.

Reinforcing "Woe is Me" and Calling it Spite

2011-10-17T09:20:00.000-05:00

Mr. Beck wrote an interesting commentary in the Sunday Argus Leader. He uses the issue of neighbors reporting neighbors who violate city ordinances by parking their boats and RVs in front of their house as a comparison to the event center debate.

Mr. Beck publicly insults and demeans a private citizen in the very column where he talks about spite. Such doublespeak. To say spite is the driving force behind not supporting the mayor's event center plan is ridiculous.

It disregards those in the community, both ordinary citizens and credible business leaders, who care about this community and have opinions that differ from the mayor and who are vocal in addressing those differences.

All Mr. Beck did in his opinion column was reinforce the mayor's feelings of persecution that he himself voiced on Stu Whitney's Live Sports Blog. The mayor thinks those who vote no are voting no because they don't like him. Sorry, it's not about spite or dislike or personal feelings.

Politics is a tough business. If you are constantly talking about getting your feelings hurt or people are out to get you because they don't like you then one should stay in the private sector.

The event center vote on November 8th is not a popularity contest, Mr. Beck and Mr. Mayor. Both of you need to get over yourselves.

And by the way, when do citizens get to pick and choose which city ordinance or law they want to follow and which one they want to break? Mr. Beck's logic is not logical.

A Thousand Dollars to Spend

2011-10-16T00:32:00.000-05:00

Have you heard the commercial produced by Build It Now that is currently on the airways? Shelby and Heather are talking about their excursions to Sioux City and Omaha to see Tim McGraw and Justin Bieber and how they wish they could've spent their $1,000 dollar event and shopping spree in Sioux Falls.

The same day I heard that commercial, I read a story in the Argus Leader regarding the poverty in our school system. In May of this year, 46.8% of the elementary school students received free or reduced price meals at school. To qualify for the federally funded program, families must be at less than 185 percent of the poverty level. That put the annual income limit at $33,874 for a household of three people last year or $40,793 for a family of four.

Percentage of Sioux Falls School District elementary students on free or reduced-price meals:
2010: 46.8
2009: 43.7
2008: 41.5
2007: 38.6
2006: 37.6
2005: 36.8

2004: 36.6

How lucky for Shelby and Heather that they had the discretionary income to blow $1,000 in one weekend to go see an entertainer and eat and shop in a distant city. Somehow, that commercial rings a little hollow after reading this article about the number of children and households eligible for free or reduced meals because of their poverty level income in this community.

I don't have the money to produce a commercial like Build It Now so here is my idea of a commercial for you to read:

John: This event center vote has me wondering whether voting yes is the right thing for Sioux Falls.

Judy: You know, the mayor promised there would be a down payment and now he says we have to finance the whole thing.

John: You mean he is breaking his promise to the taxpayers?

Judy: Not only that. There was a promise that there would be private sector funding to help pay for an event center and no one has stepped forward with any money.

John: Well, if promises are broken now how do we know anything the city promises about this plan will come true?

Judy: That's the thing John, promises are a dime a dozen. Its hard facts we need, not promises and projections based on estimates and a rosy picture of if we build it they will come.

John: I'm voting no on November 8th.

Don't Vote No Because of Me

2011-10-13T22:35:00.000-05:00

The mayor appeared on the Argus Leader Sports Web Live on October 11 and was interviewed by Stu Whitney.

The mayor seems to think that people are going to vote no on the event center because they don't like him. He said people will stop at nothing to defeat this event center or defeat him. He said the no people are impacting the city negatively to hurt him. When did this whole thing become about him? The arrogance of those statements are beyond comprehension.

This election is about the financial health and well being of this city. This election is about whether the taxpayers want to take on a debt of $172,763,000 until 2033. People are voting no because they don't like the location, they don't like the financial plan, they don't think there is money to operate the event center, they don't think an event center should be built on the justification of additional flat floor space for more conventions and trade shows; they think the parking plan will not accommodate simultaneous events.

During this interview, the mayor said that the primary tenants of the event center are not sports teams. He stated that the primary tenant will be the conventions, the conferences, the big events, trade shows. "That's the power of this investment." But when I look at the mayor's event center presentation materials, it shows the layout illustrations for a hockey game with a 10,450 seat capacity, and a hockey game with a 3300 seat capacity; the basketball with 12,000 seat capacity and one with a 3500 seat capacity. Why is the city showing these sports illustrations when he says the primary tenants are conventions, big events and trade shows? This event center plan has an identity crisis. It doesn't know what it wants to be and for whom.

It is so disingenuous to say that those who are speaking out against the event center are creating mistrust and fear.

I can honestly say that my voting no has nothing to do with whether I like this mayor or not. My vote is more important than that.

It's not about a person or a legacy or whether I like someone. It is about what I believe is in the best interest of this city. I do not believe this plan before the voters on November 8th is the best economic plan for this city at this time.

Lewis and Clark - Another Fiscal Unknown

2011-10-12T09:26:00.000-05:00

In the rush to push an event center through, we seem to have forgotten what other fiscal unknowns and necessities might be on the horizon for years to come. Add to the list of unknowns - the Lewis & Clark water project.

Nobody seems to be talking about the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System these days. Maybe the reason is that the construction project schedule will come to a screeching halt with the lack of future federal funding on this project.

The one thing that is clear these days is that the ability to count on the federal government to meet its commitments and/or obligations is long past. We heard recently that the federal funding for the city's transit system may be in jeopardy which would not be a surprise considering what the feds have done with their supposed commitment to fund Lewis & Clark. This project has become bogged down in the politics in Washington due to the mounting federal deficit and earmarks for local and state government projects.

In current dollars, the estimated cost of the entire Lewis & Clark project is said to be approximately $537 million. The project needs $35 million a year to stay on schedule and as reported in the Winter 2010 Explorer Newsletter, they were already 2 years behind.

$2 million in federal funding was proposed for FY 2011, with $1,996,000 actually funded of which $300,000 was set aside for the Bureau of Reclamation's administrative oversight. Only $493,000 in federal funding has been proposed for this project in FY 2012. A far cry from $35 million a year needed to keep things going.

20 local members and 3 states have made pre-funded payments which allowed Lewis & Clark to somewhat maintain their construction schedule. The city, in the 2006-2007 time frame, added approximately $70 million to the city's debt which was secured by the second penny sales tax (to get a good rate) with the actual debt service to be paid annually out of the water fund. The water fund is a city enterprise account which means its fees/rates for water service is set and charged to the consumer in order to pay for its infrastructure and maintenance needs and debt service.

The future construction schedule for Lewis & Clark Regional Water System is entirely dependent upon federal funding as the $153.5 million in prepayments has been spent or obligated towards current construction projects.

The federal government has appropriated $202.1 million (51% of its cost share) and has $194.3 million remaining which is increasing annually for inflation. No federal dollars means some members will not be connected to the system. Other members will pay more for the water. It means those members who prepaid their share will also have come up with the federal portion of their cost.

The City of Sioux Falls bonded the pre-payment to Lewis Clark for its share of the cost. It is a debt that will grow if the feds don't appropriate anymore money for its share. It looks to be pretty sure debt that the city will have to increase in the future. Add that possible debt to the possible debt if the feds don't come through on transit funding for the city's transit system. Debt is adding up and we haven't even added that 22 year debt out of the second penny sales tax to finance the new event center.

Add another fiscal unknown to the list of fiscal unknowns. It makes one nervous.

Transit Service - It's dang expensive!

2011-10-11T09:30:00.001-05:00

Bus ridership is growing in Sioux Falls. It's not hard to understand if you look at the people waiting at the bus stops and and at the downtown terminal. In the long term, the increase in riders could reflect a growing dependence on public transportation, Mayor Mike Huether said. That's exactly right, mayor.

A growing dependence on public transportation is reflective of our times when money is scarce, expenses are going up and choices have to be made whether one can afford a car, gas and maintenance or whether that money goes for rent and food instead. It is not surprising to understand the demographics of the ridership of transit - the working poor, the elderly, the disabled, the unemployed, the people who have less money to make ends meet.

Kudos to city staff who are looking at ways to be more efficient when they have less money to work with by revamping routes and looking to maximize shorter route times while maintaining ridership satisfaction.

It is concerning that Sioux Area Metro might be faced with a loss of federal money because the transit service is a necessity in this community. Transit services have always required an additional subsidy in which to operate. It has never operated in the black.With that necessary public service comes very strong economic concerns on how to pay for transit services for the citizens in our community who need to get to their doctor, their low paying job, go to the grocery store when they don't have any other means of transportation. "Public transportation is going to be a central need for our future. Who knows where that's going?", the mayor said. Exactly!

"It's dang expensive," Huether said of public transportation, and "the federal government has been a major investor in the past." Right on again mayor, another financial concern out there on the horizon and yet we continue to push this community to a 22 year debt on the 2nd penny sales tax and a possible drain on the general fund which is financed by property tax and the 1st penny sales tax if the revenue projections and private money doesn't come to fruition.

Funding the basic services of local government is dang expensive and who knows where it's going to come from in the future.

The Event Center David and Goliath

2011-10-07T15:37:00.000-05:00

I guess Build It Now can rest easy. The opposition has finally showed up and they have someone to target, The Citizens Network Against the Event Center. It's like David and Goliath and Build It Now wants everyone to know they are Goliath and have all the answers. Just trust me, says Goliath. I am here to save you from what you think you may know about the Event Center.

This group and the mayor have been asking for months - who and where is the opposition. We need someone to fight in order to make our case that our idea is the only right idea to move the event center vision forward.

Some money from big corporations trying to sell the kool-aid of city hall. The question is whether their money is really invested in a vision that is in the best interests of all the taxpayers of Sioux Falls or whether their money is invested for personal gain and corporation interest.

I support the position of "David," the group no matter how little, who sees the flaws in this plan for ordinary taxpayers:

Ill conceived concepts of fiscal prosperity and promises of private funding that will save the taxpayer from having to subsidizing ongoing operating costs for decades and decades.
A debt that will saddle the workhorse second penny sales tax for 22 years.
The false promise of jobs creation when in fact the majority of jobs created at construction are just temporary jobs and permanent jobs are around 180 not 1500.
The ill-conceived parking plan that will be a nightmare with the occurrence of simultaneous events at the proposed venue.
The promise that current plans for streets, parks and other projects remain intact and no planned projects have been eliminated to pay for the Event Center but doesn't take into account that necessary infrastructure projects will surely be impacted in future capital program needs.
The promise that the financing plan to build it or operate it won't use property tax revenues and the 1st penny sales tax revenues but doesn't say never.
That the projection of $1.1 million to $2.5 million per year in positive revenue from event center activities and events will be generated for operating expenses.
That using the Entertainment Tax revenues as a contingency to cover operating expenses won't impact negatively on the needs of the Washington Pavilion, Orpheum and the Great Plains Zoo and Delbridge Museum.
A projection of $36 million in new economic impact per year when there is talk of a recession next year and the economic climate is a slowdown that could last for another decade.
A promise of bigger events, more events and more simultaneous events when consumer confidence and spending is at an all time low.

The "David" in this battle sees that the time is not right and the promises don't add up.

The New Protest Movement

2011-10-07T09:27:00.000-05:00

OccupyWallStreet demonstrations are cropping up all over the country. I said to someone the other day, that I was wondering when the "silent middle" was going to speak out in contrast to the Tea Partiers. It seems the "99%" are finding their voice.

What started as a demonstration against corporate greed on Wall Street, seems to be catching some steam across the country. What do the protesters want? A solution to the jobs crisis, corporate money out of politics, fairer tax rates, and policies that work for 99% of Americans instead of the 1% at the top. The interesting thing about this new emerging "revolution" is that it is basically leaderless yet it is bringing together Americans who feel disenfranchised with what is happening on Wall Street, in Congress and to our economy.

I do worry that this country is going down a dark and dangerous economic abyss and no one seems to be able to provide the lifeline. Oh sure, President Obama thinks he has the solution in short term fixes. The Republicans think they have the answers too. There are extremes in every political debate - extremes in the Tea Party movement and extremes in this new movement. If we could just push aside the talking heads of the extreme left and the extreme right, you can see common sense in both movements.

When I look at the documents which seem to be the cornerstone of each movement, the Contract for the American Dream makes a heck of a lot more sense to me than the Tea Party activists' Contract from America. Isn't it interesting that one contract says "for" and one contract says "from"? The Contract for the American Dream is aimed at ordinary citizens while the Contract from America is aimed at candidates for political office. The extreme right is calling this new movement communists. I think the quote by Dr. Samuel Johnson is appropriate: Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Before everyone goes to their corners and starts shouting their position the loudest, take a break. There is a lot to worry about and the last time I looked we were ALL Americans.

People need to read more, become educated, think, rather than just watching the talking heads shout verbal vomit. Not everyone is going to agree, but listening to all sides of the argument usually ends in a more informed decision.

Why does one side have to always be the right one and one side has to be wrong one and the side you happen to be on gets vilified by the other one? When compromise became a dirty word and when differing positions and beliefs are vilified to make one's point is when things don't get done.

The extreme right in one corner, the extreme left in the other corner and then all these other citizens in the middle. Welcome to the now of America.

King of the Hill

2011-10-06T12:47:00.000-05:00

Important news out of city hall today - the community development department lead by Darrin Smith continues to grow and evolve into "the economic development" department.

“Economic development and supporting job creation is a priority for Mayor Huether,” Darrin Smith, Director of Community Development said. “This internal restructuring will allow us to provide the highest level of customer service to support residents, neighborhoods, and developments alike.”

There are two very significant organizations in this community who have been the lightning rod for economic development and job creation in this community: Forward Sioux Falls and the Sioux Falls Development Foundation.

When business leaders in the community formed Forward Sioux Falls in 1987 their bold initiative was "to create new jobs and stimulate capital investment in the Sioux Falls area. It was developed as the result of joint cooperation and planning between the Sioux Falls Area Chamber of Commerce and the Sioux Falls Development Foundation." This group continues to be a force in economic development to date, raising millions of dollars from investors in the community to further economic development and job creation.

In 1954, business leaders created the Sioux Falls Development Foundation, a non-profit development corporation that facilitates the attraction of new businesses, the retention and expansion of existing firms and the formation of new companies. Their services include business location assistance for new and expanding firms, comprehensive information on industrial park land, available sites and industrial buildings, utilities, demographics, labor statistics, business and tax climate and quality of life.

I think I will lay my trust and expectations for results with these two community based organizations when it comes to economic development and creating jobs. What is interesting with this announcement is the continued neutering of the coordination and leadership of the development side of the Planning and Building Services Department. Smith has now added another Planning/Building Services employee to his department, the new position and employee comes from the zoning enforcement division.

I would like the CD director to expand on his statement that this internal restructuring will provide the highest level of customer service to the residents, neighborhoods and development. Sounds like there hasn't been a high level of customer service coming out of the Planning/Building Services Department and that's the reason for the internal reorganization.

Here is what is in the Director of Planning/Building Services job description

Work with development groups, as well as private developers and consultants, to assure timely and effective development of the city.

Oversee development and implementation of comprehensive development plan for the city of Sioux Falls.

The Director of Community Development/Public Parking is responsible for urban renewal, block grant funding and public parking. There is nothing in that job description that talks about economic development as it does in the job description duties currently assigned to the incumbent director of planning/building services.

Maybe these two departments should be combined into one and the two directors duke it out for king of the hill. I can tell you where my money would go on that fight - with the director that has decades of planning and development experience. Not with the director who ran non profits related to health issues with no education, experience and training in planning, urban/economic development and job creation.

The dismantling of the planning/building services department continues. I just wish the new "King of the Hill" had some experience in his takeover of the responsibilities of a seasoned, experienced director.