South DaCola

Editorial Cartoonist from South Dakota

Citizens for Reponsible Sales Tax

1st Amendment Citizens for Reponsible Sales Tax food tax Gas Tax Media Property Taxes SF City Council Sioux Falls South Dakotans State Legislature Taxes

The 1st Amendment and the Sioux Falls City Council

l3wis 1Comments

It seems I am spending a lot of time these days talking about the role of the council and the 1st Amendment. The thing that always puzzles me is that the 1st Amendment is NOT complicated, but folks struggle with it.

So today HB Bill 1050 got killed, by a ONE VOTE in taxation committee. Several folks were instrumental in killing this bill. It would have pretty much put a $450M tax debt on the citizens of Sioux Falls if passed. I posted Greg Neitzert’s written testimony after the hearing. I truly believe that testimony changed minds, and Cathy B’s telephone testimony cinched the deal. I also emailed the committee suggesting amendments and solutions (I think it would be good for small towns, but NOT SF.)

After this I assumed city hall was reeling, trying to figure out their next steps (I will post later about the future of the Riverline District).

But things got really interesting.

I’m going to leave the constituent’s name out of this for privacy reasons, and the city councilor, because I think it applies to the ENTIRE council.

Their is a constituent that emails the mayor and the council quite a bit, he is very involved in local politics, and I don’t always agree, but he always CC’s me in the emails so I am a media witness (I think I told him to do this). I have several concerned citizens that CC me when sending emails to the city council and I encourage you to CC me, witnesses are important.

fb.art@sio.midco.net

I sometimes do a reply all to their emails if I feel something needs to be clarified or piled onto.

After I posted Former Sioux Falls City Councilor Greg Neitzert’s* submitted written testimony to the taxation committee on the blog this constituent emailed the council with Greg’s testimony and a brief statement about his work. This person called the council ‘CORRUPT’ three times, but in fair context and NOT harassment. Then he said that Greg has ‘LARGE BALLS’. Trust me, I spit out my coffee when I read that, but it’s NOT a threat or harassment. In fact, Neitzert saw the email and thot it was funny. So a newly elected city councilor wasn’t having it and reported the email to Human Resources as harassment. HOGWASH! Not only is this constituent completely harmless they wouldn’t hurt a soul, but that doesn’t matter. This NEW councilor seems to think that he is a city employee and has the same protections, he does not, YOU ARE ELECTED and must follow the constraints of the 1st Amendment and the US Constitution. Now if such an email was sent to an unelected city employee, that would be an issue. So the city’s HR department warned this constituent if they send anymore ‘Harassing Emails’ they will be blocked. First off, they don’t have that authority because this person is NOT a city employee, secondly, sending an email about concerns is NOT threatening. It often puzzles me that they put their hand on a bible and swear an oath to the Constitution but have no idea what is in the document. If you can’t handle the heat in the Carnegie Kitchen may I suggest resignation. Nobody will miss yah. The irony of all this is this councilor was in a similar situation at a former employer. Kettle meet Black.

*Full disclosure, I worked on Greg’s first term campaign coordinating his messaging, graphic design, marketing and direct mail, it was one of the most successful campaigns I was involved with, we kicked ass and took names!

Citizens for Reponsible Sales Tax Elections food tax Gas Tax Mayor TenHaken Property Taxes Sioux Falls South Dakotans State Funding State Legislature Taxes

UPDATE: Legislature wastes no time trying to increase taxes for a convention center in Sioux Falls

l3wis 10Comments

UPDATE: The argument the reps will use who support this is that smaller communities in SD need this tax leverage, for needed infrastructure, which I support 100%, but Sioux Falls doesn’t need this. Some have been suggesting to reps amend the bill so 1st class cities like SF and RC cannot get this kind of tax leverage, I would also make it so the bonds have to be for NEEDED infrastructure in their communities, not play palaces.

As I have been saying, no new convention center will be built without a tax increase. The city cannot borrow $400 million without another revenue source (full doc);

So the Municipal League suckered a retired business owner in Ft. Pierre to carry their water. Hey Mike, ever read your own campaign materials from your website?

To review my credentials, I am a conscientious, common-sense Republican who is respectful of our institutions, values, and the rewards created by investing in our people and relying on free enterprise to create opportunities for the betterment of our society. 

Hey Mike, why not take your own advice and let the private sector build this Convention Center. Seems hypocritical of your ‘values’ supporting a tax increase for essentially a white elephant we don’t need.

You will notice they will try to pass this saying that it is NOT a tax increase but an OPTION for voters. It would need a 60% passage by a citizen vote in the city that wants the increase. So how the city plan to have us vote on this? Will we vote first on a tax increase THEN vote on the CC or will we just put it in one package? I am hoping the Legislature kills this, but stranger things have happened. These taxes will also NOT go away when the CC is paid off. The entertainment tax was supposed to sunset after the CC and Pavilion bonds were paid off, guess what, still throwing money at it. The Municipal League has been lobbying for this for years. Please stop! It infuriates me that my tax dollars fund this lobbyist group and all they do is find ways to tax the living Sh!t out of us. Nobody wants to pay more in taxes for another play palace. They really need their heads examined in Pierre.

Citizens for Reponsible Sales Tax Sioux Falls

The city of Sioux Falls (kinda) admits that our petition drive was legal all along

l3wis 3Comments

As I discussed in the past, the state has said all along that our petition drive was legal as long as the petitions were in a 6-month time frame. The city refused to give us an answer on the topic, but if you watch this Charter Revision meeting, the answer is pretty clear, there is no filing deadline and the city attorney’s office is attempting to get a deadline (because no rule exists now), even though it may be unconstitutional. Funny how they couldn’t give us an answer BUT now they are attempting to change the rules. How can you change a rule that you are unsure exists to begin with? Can you say Weasels? That’s right, the city feels it can pass any ordinances they want with no regard to the state constitution and it seems like they welcome the challenge, that is if citizens can afford to challenge the constitutionality of their petition drive.

What this mean? It means politicians are attempting to further tie the hands of citizens when it comes to petition drives for initiatives and referendums. In other words, they don’t like their decisions being overturned even if those decisions are wrong and the citizens are right.

Thanks Judge Admunson for nothing. You truly have no clue who you work for.

Arterial Roads Citizens for Reponsible Sales Tax SF City Council Sioux Falls

Miscalculations? Recession? or lies?

l3wis 17Comments

When the city council decided to raise our taxes last Semptember they promised two things. 1) That the extra revenue of .08% would go into a special fund that would only be spent on arterial roads 2) That the developers would be paying 50% of that tab through platting fees. Even with the economy down and the city not being able to raise $10 million for the roads doesn’t mean that developers should be off the hook for their half of the bargain. But it seems like they think they are, and the city isn’t doing a damn thing about it.

In my interview yesterday I reiterated that the night of the increase vote that we told councilors a recession was coming, they didn’t care. It was pretty obvious that night as it is today that the four councilors who voted for the increase, Knudson, Brown, Jamison, Litz and Mayor Munson, were bought and paid for through campaign donations by the developers, one of which I busted cracking jokes about citizens testifying against the increase in the bathroom that night. The same guy who was crying and blaming the recession and the economy last night on the boob tube. Pretty funny now, isn’t it?

Here’s some highlights in the story that seem to prove they knew all along that the developers were not going to pony up;

“There’s a good supply of land platted and until that land becomes to be matured, meaning there is rooftops on it, additional land does not need to be platted,” Cotter said.

So, then, why did we need to increase taxes in 2009 to build roads we may not need until 2010 or 2011?

“We have a million dollars more in the fund today than we would have had before. We can always take the negative approach to everything and it really wouldn’t matter in the long term. We don’t build our company and I don’t think Sioux Falls builds their city, and I don’t think any bona fide business person is going to say, ‘Well, I build my company one year at a time,'” Craig Lloyd of Lloyd Companies said.

Craig’s comment is very revealing. 1) He is right, we have a million in the fund, money we, the citizens, put in the kitty, you know, the same people you belittled that September night while taking a leak. Where is your share? I agree, a city doesn’t build itself one year at a time, but when the city and developers tell us there will be a 50/50 partnership, you better hold up your end of deal, and if you don’t, why should we?

But let’s just look at the figures;

$1,000,0000 – What the city has raised so far

$78,000 – What developers have put in so far ($70,000 was added in June to the fund)

Now lets scenario the economy turns around and those numbers triple by the end of the year;

$3,000,000 – City

$234,000 – Develop

$3,234,000 – Total December 31, 2009

But this is where it gets interesting and the city gets caught up in their lies. The CIP has $5.4 million budgeted for arterial streets next year. Where is that additional money coming from? Most likely us.

$2,166,000 shortfall (that will have to be taken out of the regular CIP fund)

That would mean while taxpayers will have to pony up $5,166,000 for arterial streets next year, developers will only be putting a fraction of that aproximately $234,000, unless of course they win the lottery.

Does that sound like a 50/50 partnership to you? Kind of sounds a bad restroom joke to me.

Citizens for Reponsible Sales Tax Sioux Falls

The Retail Tax increase ruse is finally revealed

l3wis 0Comments

salestax

Last year when the Sioux Falls city council voted to raise our retail taxes they said it was for new arterial roads. They argued the extra .08% would raise $5 million for new roads and platting fees paid by developers would pay the other $5 million. A 50/50 partnership, so to speak. In recent months, I assume to downplay our tax petition, the city started to say it was going to be a 40/60 partnership instead, with the developers paying the 60%.

Well the numbers are in, and they ain’t even close to what the city is claiming. Since the tax increase took effect January 1, 2009, the extra .08% in retail taxes has collected about $1 Million dollars. In five months. Obviously it will have to pick up a bit to reach the $4 million dollar goal by the end of the year. But the alarming number is how much the developers have put in the kitty since January 1st. Let’s just say I rewinded the audio three times when finance director Eugene ‘Montgomery Burns’ Rowenhorst mumbled the amount at yesterday’s informational meeting; $8,000 dollars! Nope, you heard right, not $800,000 dollars, $8,000 in five months!  I think the Boy Scouts could raise more than that in just one week selling popcorn.

I said this tax increase was a ruse from the beginning to max out our taxes, it had nothing to do with building those roads. And if the developers are going to chip in 60% to build arterial roads, they better turn it up a notch, because at that rate, they won’t have enough money to build one block let alone several streets.

As usual, Sioux Falls taxpayers will have to pony up 90% of the money for the roads. And as usual, Munson’s administration misled and lied to the public to raise our taxes.

Shameful.

ANOTHER THING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP, in the meeting by Rowenhorst was how much of our Capital Improvement fund goes toward debt service (paying interest and principal on bonds); 22%. Just imagine all the roads we could fix if we weren’t throwing those millions away on interest payments? By rough estimates I’m guessing we pay about $25 million in interest/principal payments a year, just on our CIP projects. Ironically, Eugene bragged that 22% was a good number, he said the city’s credit rating could allow us to be paying 44% out in debt service.

Where do they get these clowns anyway? Oh that’s right Rowenhorst and Munson worked for Citibank, that explains it all.

Next Page »

You Missed

Downtown Sioux Falls Sioux Falls Sioux Falls Parks and Rec

What’s the ‘REAL’ reason the $16 Million ice ribbon is NOT finished?

Education funding SF School Board Member SF School District Sioux Falls State Funding State Legislature

Sioux Falls School Board rips the State Legislature to shreds

Curt Soehl Downtown Sioux Falls Elections Mayor TenHaken Riverline District SF City Council Sioux Falls

We may have the ‘Trots’ for another few months

Elections Mayor TenHaken Sioux Falls

Is Mayor TenHaken becoming a lame duck on purpose?