At last evening’s Alcester City Council Meeting, item number 12-b-ii was considered. This issue dealt with the sewer line at 5th & Ofstad which had been discussed at a previous meeting of the council. The issue was whether to sleeve* ($16,000.00) the sewer line to effect a repair or to a total, complete repair the line at a projected cost of ($25,000.00) and the consequences of this sewer line was the proposed line to take the sewages from the N40 Industrial Park (my term).

During this discussion, the question was asked where the funds to effect either the sleeving or the full, complete repair, to which FO Jurrens replied, “from the 2nd penny sales tax”. I was astounded because Alcester has a sewer enterprise fund just for the purpose of replacing and repair of the sewer infrastructure. WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT FUND? Why is the city using the 2nd penny sales tax to fund something that each and every resident and business within the corporate limits of Alcester are already billed and pay into a sewer enterprise fund through their water bill. Check your water bill folks. Simply put the sewer fee breaks down into operational costs plus a sort-of-contingency fee or a savings account if you will to pay for costs of repair, renewal and construction of waste-water/sewer infrastructure. Ostensibly these contingency fees/sewer savings account would draw interest which would build the fund.

Since 2014 these enterprise funds have been raided (borrowed from) to pay for things not water or sewer, the city has been admonished for these questionable accounting practices and because of these practices the city is ineligible for certain grants.

So motion was called. Alcester City Councilman Lance Johnson made the motion to sleeve the Ofstad sewer line compromise but failed to state the intention to fund this ‘sleeving’ out of the second penny sales away rather than from the normal sewer fund. Councilman Dan Haeder seconded the motion and vote was unanimous to sleeve the Ofstad sewer line compromise.

At this point the city attorney was released from the meeting and on his way past me, I asked him about the failure to designate funding type and that an amendment was needed to confirm the fund from which the $16000.00 cost was to come. He agreed and spoke to FO Pat Jurrens before he left. Apparently FO Jurrens decided it was not necessary to amend the sewer ‘sleeve’ vote ignoring the Alcester City Attorney’s counsel because she did not inform Mayor Glas of the need for an amendment.

I waited, realizing the amendment was not going to be made, called point of order so the improper motion would be properly corrected.

To amend, the council needed to review the motion. Then make a motion to add the corrective language, second the motion to add corrective language and take a vote. Upon majority yes vote, the corrective language is added to the motion. The corrected motion then is made, a second is made and a vote taken to pass the corrected motion.

What actually happened?  Chaos! The motion to amend the original motion to read the funding of $16000.00 would be taken from the 2nd penny sales tax was made by Councilman David Larsen and seconded by Councilman Lance Johnson and vote to amend was unanimous. But a motion to accept the amended motion was not taken based on the rationale they had already voted on the original motion. So the amended motion to sleeve the Ofstad sewer compromise lies in limbo until a confirming vote can be taken to set the decision to ‘sleeve’ the Ofstad sewer compromise with the $16000.00 cost to come from the 2nd penny sales tax.

Failure of proper procedure has just put the Ofstad sewer sleeve project on hold until a proper motion and vote can be taken. Still the question,

        WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MONEY IN THE SEWER FUND?

      WHERE DID IT GO?

        WHY THE LIBERTIES WITH OUR SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND?

*Simplified a ‘sleeve’ is the process which inserts a smaller diameter pipe through the damaged outer pipe to carry the sewage in this case.

Mayor Glas called the May 1, 2017, regular Alcester City Council meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The May meeting is usually a transitional event where the old council finishes up old business of approving minutes, approve warrants, adjourn the old council. THE new council meeting is opened with any incoming council members seated by the administration of the oath of office, election of President and Vice-President of the Alcester City Council and THEN the meeting agenda is approved.

After the Pledge Allegiance was recited, the council went about its business by approving the agenda (OOPS!), approving the April 3, 2017, minutes, approving the warrants and then adjourning the old council meeting at 6:00 p.m.

Mayor Glas called the New Alcester City Council meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Oaths of Office were administered to Dan Haeder (2 year term) and Julia Sundstrom-Lyle (1 year term) by Alcester City Attorney Chuck Haugland.

The council then elected Councilman Dan Haeder as President of the Alcester City Council with Councilman David Larsen as Vice President of the Alcester City Council.

Legal updates on the Ives bankruptcy and the malt beverage license renewals. The group authorized Mayor Glas to execute alcohol purchase agreements with fees set by ordinance.

Outside legal counsel item. According to FO Pat Jurrens, WE (FO Jurrens and Code Enforcement Officer Jeff Fillingsness) felt Tom Frieberg of Beresford was a better candidate to handle the state plumbing code violation of Village West Apartments and because FO Pat Jurrens (Note: Alcester has no city administrator just a city bookkeeper) felt, “…he (Tom Frieberg) and Code Enforcement Officer Jeff Fillingsness work well together…” No Duh! Since Jeff Fillingsness is the code enforcement officer for Beresford, who works with Beresford City Attorney Tom Frieberg with Beresford Code language, violations and citations. After Councilman Dave Larsen asked the question,

“why not Alcester City Attorney Chuck?”,

Alcester City Attorney Chuck answered he was concerned over possible conflict of interest and he had no objection to this one-time outside legal consultation, the council voted to allow this one-time outside legal consult with Tom Frieberg.

Another ‘WE’ request for outside legal consult with Tom Frieberg for a condemnation case on 306 Iowa Street. Here there was no conflict of interest, so why does FO Jurrens want to outsource our legal city business to another town?

PUBLIC INPUT Angela Hansel appeared to ask for some sort of variance/easement on her property at 211 SD 11. One has to wonder why Ms. Hansel was directed to public input rather than a line item on the agenda. It appears there is some sort of concrete encroachment into the city alley and the property owner wants an easement to add more building to the encroachment. The council discussed precedent, survey lines and the Mayor? Well, the mayor just wanted to give advice about the necessity of re-bar when a new slab of concrete is added to an existing slab of concrete. Really? Really? Set-backs, dedicated alleys and utilities right-of-ways are in place for a reason but Mayor Glas is only concerned about the technique of adding one slab of concrete to another. The city should never-ever hand out encroaching easements of a city owned alley. FIND THE SURVEY MARKERS, cure the adverse encroachment without abandoning property! THINK! Don’t make the same mistake as the East Clark street fiasco, that evidently the city did not OWN the property (i.e. fairground road) that the city built up to accommodate FCS Elevator without checking property ownership to the tune of:

• Gravel- $1212.30,
• Dirt Work-$7563.30,
• Rock-$4044.53 and
• Misc,-$1075.19 ===================Total $13,895.32
  • per the October 2015, page 6 of the City of Alcester, Financial Statement and Independent Auditor’s Report For the Two Years Ended December 31, 2015.

In public input I presented the Alcester City Council with the March 3, 2014, vote establishing a municipal website at $1375.00 to build the Alcester municipal website and $450 annual administration fee. Councilwoman Kama Johnson made the motion, Councilman Mike Burke seconded the motion with council members David Larsen, Mark Dykstra, Kama Johnson, Mike Burke, Pat Jurrens (this was while Councilwoman Pat Jurrens was still seated as councilperson) and Steve Johannsen voted yes to establish the Alcester City Municipal Website. I also gave the council a copy of the South Dakota Municipal League Website Development program which offers a discount for website development.

I also presented an FOIA for information on the Incidental Account which allows for discretionary funds for the Mayor and Finance Office which requires two officers signatures (not a council vote) to access the funds. Also included in this FOIA was my request for the current council voted funds limit available to those two positions. Finally I included a Black’s Law Dictionary definition of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance so the mayor and council understood how those terms could be applied to the failure to set up the website, the continued failure to set up the Alcester City Municipal website and how failure to fulfill their municipal obligations is defined legally.

Councilman Dan Haeder brought up a complaint he received regarding Snap chat, lewd (my term, cause the comment made indicated no clothing was removed) behavior and the local liquor establishment. The situation was handed off the Police chief who remarked, “…she refused to speak to me…” Uh-huh.

FO Jurrens announced a Planning and Zoning Ordinance meeting on May 22, 2017, with Patrick who apparently is a neophyte in handling Planning and Zoning. Wonderful. It appears the Planning and Zoning document is a 95 page wonder. I certainly hope this Ordinance is actually read and ramifications are understood better that the IPMC was. A lot of rules and regulations which are too numerous to enforce without costing the city a fortune and what rules and regulations are enforced uniformly thus causing court time but that seems to be okay ’cause Code Enforcement Officer Fillingsness knows and works really well with Beresford City Attorney Tom Frieberg.

Last item up was executive session for personnel SDCL 1-25-2-1:

SDCL 1-25-2 (1) Discussing the qualifications, competence, performance, character or fitness of any public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee.

council went into executive session at 7:58 p.m. with Finance Officer Pat Jurrens and Asst. Finance Officer Wanda Halverson in the closed session.

  I would like to note this closed session discussion is limited to ONE officer or employee and their perceived qualification, competence, performance, character or fitness. Not discussions on scheduling, not overtime in a department or how a department head is handling scheduling or what the Finance Office may hear through the window between the Finance office and the police department. As bookkeepers, neither of these two women are qualified to make judgments other than the competence, performance, character, and fitness of the finance office and IF, they are offering testimony on a fellow employee or officer they must be interviewed separately due to confidentiality. If notes are taken, one of the council should be taking notes in the executive session and preferably by the President or Vice-President of the council! ANY conversations dealing with anything other than one employee (at-a-time) or city official is breach and violation of the Open meeting law.

Council was called back in session at 8:21 p.m. and Mayor Glas called for adjournment.

PART ONE

The March 2, 2017, regular Alcester City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Tom Glas, with council members Mark Dykstra, Julia Sundstrom, Audri Carlson, Lance Johnson, Dan Haeder and Alcester city attorney Charles Haugland present with Councilman David Larsen not present.

The meeting agenda was approved with the exclusion of item #8-Kevin Pies Sidewalk/Parking Lot by the council. The minutes of the February 6th, 2017, meeting were approved as published and presumably written.

Public Input was called. Vickie Larsen (me) responded on two issues.

     #1  the Peter and Vickie Larsen letter to Alcester City concerning their water bill and    the failure to mail the January 2017 and the February 2017 water bills to Peter and Vickie   Larsen.

February 10, 2017, letter to the city:

February 16, 2017, response by city to the Larsens:

Note the argument:

                   “…the city does all it can to make the best use of its resources. One of the ways we save on postage expense is to hand deliver as many monthly bills and checks as possible. It is not our policy to mail our bills with a large credit balance…”

Note: Observe the cost saving measures applied to the February 16, 2017, official city finance office letter. Evidently it is too expensive to waste a Alcester City letter head on a tax paying city resident notifying them of FO official business and policy! The Alcester FO is in the habit of adding announcements to the water bill.  So if I do not get a bill because the FO is too cheap to mail it, I will not have access to any important announcements the FO or the AFO may affix to the bill. In addition, paying the AFO (what does she make an hour?) to trot up and down main street Alcester hand-delivering water bills to save $.34 cents a card on my water bill when she already trudges 2.5 blocks to mail water bills to the whole town is utterly Incredulous!

                   “…We did have the January water bill prepared and available for Vickie Larsen when she attended the January City Council meeting. We noticed Vickie had left it on her chair in the conference room…”

Note: Folks, As I entered the council meeting room, I saw a square of white paper left on a chair next to where I sit for the meeting. There was no writing on the square of white paper to indicate what it was, to whom it was intended or that it was anything but scrap paper left over from a fund-raising ‘function’ Mayor Glas indulges the FO staff to run out of the city office. If it was indeed my water bill, the FO staff left my personal information in a public arena where anyone could pick it up and have access to all my personal information (address, account number, amount of water, my water rates, my account balance) printed out for them on the card. One has to wonder at the advisability of putting all that information on a postcard. H-m-m-m?

#2 Notification of consideration of the annexation of the properties along the west side of SD Hwy 11 from the south city limits to the Alcester Steakhouse.

Note:  This notification did rate official letterhead but apparently a date cost extra.  I own property along the line of proposed annexation.

I said No to annexation!  Mayor Glas responded I was the only one to say, No.  Upon which Alcester City Councilman Dan Haeder responded he had an annexation affected person voice their objection to annexation and Alcester City Attorney Charles Haugland reported he also had an annexation affected person object to city annexation.  I commented on the ill-conceived, illogical and flat-out attempt of annexation by Mayor Tom Glas.

Note the ‘benefits’ touted by Mayor Glas and his crony nuisance hunter:

• Fire protection-hydrants would be installed along Hwy 11.
  • Response:  The distance from the Alcester Volunteer Fire Department and closest fire hydrant is approximately three blocks from the farthest point of the proposed annexation.  Any new fire hydrants would have to be drilled under the rails of the railroad and drilled under the protected water way.
• Lower insurance premiums due to fire hydrants closer to your property.
  • Response:  Again, the Alcester Volunteer Fire Department and city water fire hydrant is approximately three blocks from the farthest point of the proposed annexation and well within requirements for lower fire protection fees.
• Eligibility to run/sit on city council.
  • Response:  Three of the entitles subject to annexation are businesses with no living premises on site, therefore are NOT eligible to hold any office in the city of Alcester.
• Can vote in city elections.
  • Response:  Two of the business owners live within the city limits and can already vote and hold office, unless they are black-listed by the FO.
• Free use of the city dump and dumpsters.
  • Response:  The city dump is restricted to green waste only and rubble.  All properties within the proposed annexation have burn pits and can compost their garbage.
• Home Owners will abide by the Property Maintenance Code.
  • Response:  This one is a real charmer.  Mayor Tom Glas and Alcester FO want to annex our property so we can play Captain, May I with them.  The IPMC (the International Property Maintenance Code) which the city adopted apparently in its entirety-–(most cities have abandoned global adoption because it is too expensive for a small town to enforce) via its Paid Enforcement Officer can ticket us for weeds and grass over 6 inches, condemn our lawn ornaments as nuisances and fine us, they can condemn our trees if they cast a shadow lower than 14 feet from the street, they can ticket our siding if the color doesn’t match the city hall color scheme, they can ticket our window cause they have shades not curtains, they can fine our garbage can because it is not blue or tilts the wrong direction and so on and so on.  Shoot, you even are privileged to pay for the code enforcement officer who lives in a neighboring town, they don’t ever hire local.
• Real estate tax dollars will be used to enhance amenities, roads and etc. throughout Alcester.
  • Rebuttal:  Our property taxes WILL go up, we will pay 6.5% sales tax instead of the 4.5% we pay now on everything we buy and have shipped in.  Most entities on the annexation route already have rural water so the city does not have to drill water lines under the railroad tracks and under the protected waterway.  The sewer, however, requires at least one lift station with a projected price tag of $435K plus costs of easements, etc. plus the city already has another lift station on-line for the North annexation.  H-m-m, $435,000.00 + $435,000.00= O-o-o-h MY that is some bill!  The city will be on the hook for new culverts on South Street, hard surface for South Street and curb and gutter for the north side of South Street which runs about two blocks.  The city will be responsible for the care and periodic dredging of the protected waterway to protect against flooding.  As for amenities?  Alcester Steakhouse has a liquor license from Union County which is an asset of considerable worth because this liquor license can be moved.  However if annexed, the liquor license currently held by Alcester Steakhouse would be forfeit but they would have a grand-fathered liquor license as long as the current owner remained owner.  City liquor licenses are OWNED by the city, cannot be moved and the city is limited to three liquor licenses.  If annexed in the Alcester Steakhouse would have to purchase their liquor through the city at a mark-up they do not have now.  Definite profit killer.  The businesses along the annexation route would be subject to the IPMC, so if we produced noise, bad smells and airborne particulate like FCS we could be cited and fined as a violation of the IPMC.  A-n-n-d some of us would be forced to pay another shot of property tax to maintain the derelict, money pit and profit pirate the Alcester City owned bar.  Why would other bar owner-operators willingly pay property taxes to keep the city owned bar off the tax rolls, make upgrades for the lessee, reduce the lease rate allowing the lessee run competition to them?

Mayor Glas, you and the FO sure failed to think this one out!

(to be continued)