It has often amazed me that Munson, most of the city council and the Argus Leader have always been gigantic fans of borrowing money for WANTS;

The central question about whether the city should proceed with issuing $20 million in bonds is whether there’s ability to repay the money.

 

Officials in Mayor Dave Munson’s administration say that answer is “yes.”

It has been proven time and time again you can’t take what Dave says with a grain of salt. Besides,  does he really care? He’s gone in the spring of 2010, he won’t have to worry about how the next council and mayor have to pay back debt. If you ask me, it’s a little irresponsible of him to leave that kind of debt over our heads.

 

Although some council members are nervous about borrowing more money right now, it actually makes sense to move forward with this round of bonding since most of projects on the list are construction projects.

With a sluggish economy, construction companies are looking for work, and the city is likely to land favorable bids.

I’m all for creating jobs, but let’s create sustainable jobs for once in Sioux Falls. The construction companies go through this dance every spring and fall, they hire when they have work, and layoff when they do not, it has little to do with a recession. I think the developers and contractors should be out looking for private sector work and leave the city alone for once. I already think they have their heads so far up the mayor’s ass that it borders on criminal conflict of interest.

Over Her Dead Body film

However, Finance Director Eugene Rowenhorst points out that much of the city’s current authorized debt, which exceeds $320 million, is being repaid with user fees from water rates and other utilities. That leaves more ability to use tax revenue to pay off this new round of bonds.

We SHOULDN’T BE PAYING BONDS OFF WITH USER FEES! User fees are for upgrading infrastructure, like water and sewer, not for building monkey crappers and lining the pockets of bond investors.

City officials are taking other prudent steps to control costs, but it’s actually unreasonable to expect time simply to stop because of an uncertain economy.

And because these are uncertain times, it’s especially important to avoid operating out of uncontrolled fear.

Well the rest of us have cut back (that’s pretty fricking obvious when you look at the tax receipt growth), we expect the same out of our government.

Now’s the time for the administration to show strong leadership, and proceeding with a smart, well-timed round of bonding projects that moves the city forward is an example of doing just that.

And, ironically you point out the exact reason why these bonds are bad idea. There has never been anyone SMART or STRONG at city hall over the past 7 years, just people interested in racking up massive debt ($230 million and counting, just under Munson). Once againg, the editorial board couldn’t be more wrong. No surprise.

By l3wis

5 thoughts on “Doesn't matter what shape the economy is in, we should never be borrowing money for 'wants'”
  1. We SHOULDN’T BE PAYING BONDS OFF WITH USER FEES! User fees are for upgrading infrastructure, like water and sewer

    So if we take out a bond to improve the sewer or water treatment facilities, we shouldn’t pay it back with user fees?

  2. That’s fine, and we have done that. But I don’t think we should just use user fees as a bond payoff slush fund. If I am paying extra for water and sewer I want that extra money going to upgrading water and sewer, not upgrading monkey crappers at the Zoo.

  3. though ironically, city owned crappers (monkey or human) are technically a ‘sewer’ expenditure.

    Maybe I should have used a different example.

  4. Quite honestly, if we had a properly managed city we would be able to finance projects without the need for bonds at all. We shouldn’t be so short sighted that we need to run out and get money for a project we knew was needed 15-20 years ago.

    It is called being proactive rather than reactive. The excess user fees being collected today should be placed in a trust fund that can be used to finance expansion and improvement projects tomorrow.

    Instead, we have tripled our city debt under the Munson administration. Why don’t I think he will mention that as part of his legacy?

    I think they all need a copy of Dave Ramsey’s book.

  5. Legacy spending is right.

    You point out the irony of all this. Since FEMA sent a letter in early April that we are no longer in the floodplain there is no reason to go apeshit on this project. We can go back to the original plan and budget a little each year until it’s done. Same with the Zoo and Football fields. I’m not against quality of life projects, I’m against borrowing for them. We have plenty of money in the regular budget to pay for these things.

    I can’t wait to see Munson’s golden parachute!

Comments are closed.