Not sure if that is what he meant while talking about the city budget, but I like the idea.
Jamison is asking whether that’s the case with this budget. He wants to know if the economy improves next year and sales tax revenues turn around, what the city should do with the extra money.
“Some might think do we really need to keep that money, should we give it back?” Jamison said.
Well, Greg, I think we have been overtaxed for a long time. Maybe instead of rebates, we should just cut taxes. But before we commend Huether for finding $30 million in cuts, we need to look at what he is cutting;
• Non-profits that provide vital services to the city
• Libraries
• Police
• Snow removal
And while he brags about ‘cutting’ these services, he increases general fund spending;
Huether’s proposed $117.7 million in general fund spending is a 0.7 percent increase over the $116.9 million in the 2010 budget after the spending revisions were made.
So what are these cuts you speak of? Especially when you are proposing a cool million for an Events Center plan WE DON’T need since we already have a good one with the Downtown proposal. While I agree we can provide some city services on the cheap why would we cut public safety and libraries first? I believe a 5% across the board cut makes the most sense, then go back and delve into individual cuts. The first place I would start is cutting back on all of these ‘assistant’ directors. Each major department should have ONE director, that’s it. If they can’t handle the job without an assistant, fire them.
If you want to cut essential services for the ‘good people of Sioux Falls’ – Fine, then cut our taxes or pay down our debt, or do both.
The first place I would start is cutting back on all of these ‘assistant’ directors. Each major department should have ONE director, that’s it. If they can’t handle the job without an assistant, fire them.
Damn Scott. Are you reading my mind? EXACTLY my sentiment. Cotter at 148 K a year, and Smith, his old “assistant” at 117K a year a shining example. But I would go one step further. The city is FULL of jobs in the 60K to 90K a year bracket that just make you go…WTF????
One example, and just a quick one cuz it’s the first that comes to mind. Nothin personal. Jim Sedaris. Fire Department. Ya know. The guy that plays Captain 11 on the HMN, channel 16. Has’nt been on a fire call or emergency response in years, yet pulls down $90K a year. These are the knights and bishops I speak of in our city chess game. The city is FULL of em.
I like Jim, but agree. Our Fire department is TOP NOTCH under his leadership. But he should battle the flames once in awhile.
What frustrates me is that most Sioux Falls residents make between 20-30,000 a year, yet our tax rolls pay these huge salaries.
Whether you agree with the cuts or not, at least you have to agree this is unprecedented in our city. To have a mayor who forecasts 0% revenue growth and actually proposes a 9% reduction in the budget it long overdue.
Everyone has a favorite department or non-profit that they feel should not have their budget cut, and making the decision on which should be reduced and which shouldn’t can’t be easy, but the bottom line is Mike is making the tough decisions to reduce the overall budget which should be commended.
As to these specific cuts, according to the AL story the cuts to some of the non-profits sound like they are cuts that are already in effect due to money removed from holdbacks… so these agencies are already adapting and yet magically our city continues to survive.
I suspect the biggest reduction in library budget is because there won’t be any large scale building projects next year as there were in the past several years. That means there isn’t a need to slide millions into their budget although it may mean a delay to some of their projects they had planned (which is perfectly ok while battling a recession).
The cut to the police is minimal and frankly probably ok considering every department has its share of bloat. A cut of less than 5% should not be difficult to handle.
The only one I really question is the snow removal budget, because that doesn’t seem like something we can easily control. Heuther does want to try Snowgates but the only way I could see to reduce snow removal expenses would be to plow the roads less or hope and pray we have a mild winter.
I would have liked to see a cut to the Parks budget, but no mayor is going to do everything the way I want or you want… so if you want things done your way there is only one way to make that happen and that is to run for mayor.
But to think a guy can cut by the budget by 9% and yet you come in here and complain that general fund spending is going up by 0.7%? Once again you show the inability to see the big picture. Maybe it would help if you understood city contracts mandate raises and benefits costs continue to rise as well. Everything from fuel to printer ink to electricity costs more each year so to think he can hold growth to 0.7% is simply amazing and should be commended… not criticized.
Let me know the last time in Sioux Falls history that general spending went up by less than 1%…. I’m betting Mike deserves much more credit than you are offering.
Jamison gets respect from me. Finally, although the council has no power, someone acknowledges citizens. I don’t need a refund but no property tax increases this year or next.
Finding 30 million is an indication of how much Munson was fiiltering into his corrupt network.
OK, Huether came through here. Give us liberty, repeal Home Rule, and you might be reelected.
I agree with comments here (above).
Thinning city employees is necessary in a dormant economy. There’s not enough for them to do when there’s less construction. Considering union obstruction, no new hires and not replacing retirees could work. Yes, one assistant director per department. No cuts to police and fire. They’re needed more in a down economy.
Ship the camera back and put police at that corner during daylight hours. It’s cheaper and prosecutable.
At least he doesn’t seem to care if he pisses a few people off.
And I agree with Costner’s sentiment.
Not really a fair comparision Costner, especially when you consider that Sioux Falls has been on a growth spurt (both population & economically) for the better part of 25 years.
It’s also not really fair to characterize Sioux Falls as “overtaxed” as we have one of the top 10 lowest overall tax burdens in the Nation outside of places like Anchorage, AK or Cheyenne, WY.
Like any Budget, cut where it’s prudent to do so and invest where it’s critical to the long term growth. I hope the cuts to the non-profits won’t be long term, as Brown is correct that you pay one way or the other. I don’t like Huether’s Events Center plan, and I don’t see it getting built by 2014. He’s going to spend a million $$ on a mock up he can use to sell it to the voters. You know, those thousands & thousands of people he’s personally talked to who are too stupid to support something they cant’ see & touch. The same ones who are too stupid to support the plan with the best potential payback.
If he simply builds a 10K seat venue next to the Arena, he will need a ramp and the costs will go up. As they do, Huether will adopt the line that we need a Sales Tax increase to pay for it. The rest of the million $$ will be spent on a campaign to sell the idea to the voters. If the Economy is still dragging ass next year, you’ll see the same result as the last plan.
If by some miracle it does pass, you will actually see the Events Center become the self-fulfilling prophecy of the nay-sayers. It will be too small to compete against our neighbors. It will not yield the kind of payback that it would downtown, not even close. You will still have all your entertainment & sporting eggs in one basket, which will always mean at some point you will lose business.
If he was counting on his old boss TDS to pony up a big donation to the project, that ship has sailed. Most of the other players who have any significant $$ to donate won’t throw their money away on a crappy plan either.
Huether’s issue is this is all simply part of his next campaign. He wants to get the EC done just to say he got it done or “took it to the next level” all while “having a blast” and “shaking things up” and whatever other platitudes are on the tip of his tongue.
Once the Pavilion is paid off they will use the entertainment tax to subsidize the New EC.
I am happy he is making cuts, I just find it a little suspicious that he would cut police before parks (I agree that budget is bloated) They are also planning on building an indoor pool. Kearney tried to shy away from that question when Vernon asked him about it at the info meeting the other day.
Sy: Not really a fair comparision Costner, especially when you consider that Sioux Falls has been on a growth spurt (both population & economically) for the better part of 25 years.
There is no doubt we are growing and have been for decades, but the growth of the budget over the past few years has outpaced the growth of tax receipts and population. Munson ignored signs of slowed growth and flat out refused to acknowledge the idea that the recession would eventually hit Sioux Falls, and we saw the net result.
I’m not against the city growing the budget obviously, but I feel that has been done at a pace which is not sustainable for several years. The city needs to budget appropriately so when we do have a bad year, we can hopefully weather the storm without the need to raise taxes, fees, or otherwise shift the burden to the people who are suffering the same economic plight.
We should have a hold on raising property taxes for a few years and not have any new CIP projects for a few years. I haven’t bought ‘extra’ shit for over two years due to this economy, and the city can do the same. I’m sure we will be just fine without a new hot-tub snow monkey exhibit.