We are still collecting petition signatures but we are also in a holding pattern right now to. We are still reviewing the legality of the initiative and hope to have some clear answers by next week.
Hang in there!
I compared apples to apples and all I can say is, damn right it is!
I first want to say that Sioux Falls has an amazing park system. But is it all useful? We continue to build new parks when we are not using the current parks we have to capacity. Take Yankton Trail for instance. Rumor has it the city only allows the park for competition, not to be used as a practice facility. Why is that? I have even heard stories of police intimidation if you are using certain parks just for recreation instead of competition. What Up?!
This summer I rode my bike to work almost every day on the bike trail. I found the trail to be well maintained and frequently used, I also found our parks are over manicured, watered, mowed, and maintained (what’s the point of mowing ½†of grass!?).
Why does the parks department and budget continue to grow at such a rapid rate, and what is the solution to slow it down a bit to an acceptable inflationary level? I suggest we stop building new parks for at least two years and do an extensive study on how much our parks are used by monitoring their usages throughout the week and seasons. If certain parks have little usage – we sell off the land. I also suggest we build smaller parks that are easier and less expensive to maintain. I also think we should reduce the size of some of our larger parks. One thing I observed this summer is that smaller parks are more populated. Not sure why? Maybe people feel safer?
I decided to look at another city similar to ours in climate, size and growth. Billings, Montana is two-thirds the size in population to Sioux Falls.
Billings spends $5,714 a year per developed acre of parkland.
Sioux Falls spends $11,546 a year per developed acre of parkland.
Can you imagine if it cost you that much to maintain your lawn every year! Even if you feritlized, watered and paid a lawn service for an acre of land you are still looking at about $2,200
You must also remember, the $33 Million is the 2009 operating budget ONLY! This does not include building and developing new park land, that is in a separate budget called the CIP.
Sioux Falls maintains 4.8 times more parkland than Billings and even if you adjust for the population difference Sioux Falls still maintains 3.22 times more parkland than Billings. Sioux Falls budget is 9.78 times larger than Billings and 6.52 times larger when you adjust for population – Holy Crap! This is pretty amazing considering the similarities between Sioux Falls and Billings. If you go to Billings Parks and Recreation page you will see that they also offer as many activities as Sioux Falls. In Sioux Falls defense we charge visitors a tax to buy stuff here to help fund our parks. In Billings they are not so lucky, they only have a state income tax to work with. Not only does Billings maintain developed acres on such a small budget they also maintain over 2,000 acres of undeveloped parks but they also irrigate their parks like we do, from the river. When I spoke to one of the park’s directors about his operating budget, he said they were underfunded (well duh) but when I told him our budget, he was dumbfounded, as was I when I heard his budget.
What is the problem? My guess is Sioux Falls is paying too much for outside services and over-maintaining. It’s not like Billings is a couple bucks short of us on funding, they are millions and millions of dollars shorter than us. It tells me that Sioux Falls Parks and Recreation is in a constant state of overspending. We can have all the same things we have now, we just need to start shopping at the dollar store.
How has the Parks budget grown to such a massive level without some oversight? That’s just it, there is no oversight or accountability. The Parks board meetings are not televised or broadcast on the city website. The other problem is that the Parks board is all volunteer. I think they need to be elected officials. With a $33 million dollar operating budget a year, they operate almost as a separate entity from the city. In fact, up until a few years ago, the Parks and Rec department made their own decisions on public art, not consulting the Mayor, Council or Visual Arts Commission before placing public art. Kinda takes the word ‘Public’ out of ‘Public Art’.
Once we ask for accountability from our Parks and Rec department not only will you see incredible savings to taxpayers, you will see more CITIZEN friendly parks.
We will be continuing our petition drive, the Argus Leader writes about it today;
A petition drive to lower the sales tax in Sioux Falls will continue after sponsors sought legal advice Tuesday, one day after a lawyer representing the city said that lowering the tax would be illegal.
People have to remember this is about sending a message to city hall that spending, borrowing and taxation is out of control and we expect better from the next council and Mayor in 2010. It is of no consequence to Mayor Munson or the other last term councilors. They have had their chance to be accountable and have failed on some fronts.
The worst part about this is that the city paid an out-of-state attorney (with our taxdollars) to mislead the very citizens that paid her tab.
On Monday night, Minneapolis lawyer Betsey Aby told city councilors it would violate state law to lower the sales tax because portions of the city’s sales tax are obligated to pay its outstanding bonds.
Sioux Falls lawyer Dan Brendtro disagrees with Aby’s opinion.
“I think that she is flat-out wrong,” he said after meeting with Stehly.
Brendtro said the decrease sought by Citizens for a Responsible Sales Tax would not imperil the city’s ability to pay off existing bonds. He argues that the state constitution requires local governments to collect a “sufficient” amount of money to honor debt payments.
“It doesn’t say you can’t lower your taxes,” he said.
Remember, this initiative is about letting the citizens decide. How you vote on it is up to you.
This could be us, if we don’t act now. “Heh, Heh, the fishin’ pretty good in Sioux Falls, huh daddy?”
Though it is disappointing that our intitiative bit the dust, I am more disappointed in the seven councilors who voted for the $38 million dollar bond to pay for the levees. Do I think the project needs to be done? Definately. But it all comes down to timing and Federal money, and FACTS, not gut feelings.
Some things the councilors did not take into consideration;
– They could still negotiate with FEMA. FEMA is the federal agency that created this flood plain, it should be the Federal government’s responsibility to fix and pay for the problem and last I checked people in Sioux Falls pay Federal income taxes, the Feds owe us.
– Though it is true we have to foot the bill for the 41st Street bridge ($12 Million) we could have pulled that money from the CIP (where it originally was) but instead it was thrown into the loan so the city could spend the $12 million in the CIP on WANTS. Very, very, fiscally irresponsible considering our interest on the loan will be over $8 million to pay back.
– This city hasn’t had a major flood since the 1950’s and there hasn’t been ANY studies done for at least 20 to 30 years about where we stand for floods. We also have been in a drought for the last 4 years, at least, in SD. (ironically why the Lewis and Clark pipeline is so vital) There have only been two incidents in recent years that had nothing to do with the levees or the floodplain. In 1996 the spillway had to built up because it couldn’t handle the Spring thaw and in 2005 we got two torrential rains that backed up into people’s basements do to inadequate sewer and street drainage. The levees held then too. I have said to this day, that happened because for the past 20 years the city has been putting bandades on infrastructure while going gungho on new development and growth, and they continue this practice to this day. You can thank Steve Metli, former city planner for that.
– Individual property owners are responsible for their own flood insurance, not the city. If they don’t want to pay for the insurance for the next couple of years, don’t buy it or move. Ironically not one single property owner of the 1,900 properties in the proposed floodplain came last night to plead with the council to vote for this loan. NOT A SINGLE ONE! Yet Munson told us there was many concerned citizens, but I guess not concerned enough to show up to this important decision that would affect their property. He also said he “Feels for people” on fixed incomes that may have to buy this insurance. Well, if you are so concerned about fixed income people, stop raising our taxes on food to pay for streets that we don’t need. That’s a start.
– And lastly, my biggest argument why this loan was a bad idea was because once we pay for this up front, what obligation does the Federal government have to pay us back? None. The argument is we would save money on bonds and bids if we do the project now. Which is a dumb argument, considering if the FEDs pay for it, instead of us, who cares what it cost, we won’t have to pay it back. The objective of Obama’s stimulous package is to create 5 million jobs. What incentive does the Obama administration have to create jobs for infrastructure projects in a city that has a low unemployment rate and the credit rating to pay for these projects on their own?
The solution?
Even though Staggers voted for the project he tried to get an amendment to push the bridge back into the CIP (where it belongs) so we could reduce our loan. Nobody seconded the motion.
I think we should pay for the bridge out of our CIP and make cuts to wants. I think we should get on the horn to Ironic Johnny, Timmy come lately and Stephanie Herseth-Sandals Vaction and get them in on the stimulous package to get us Federal aid for the levees.
Of course now it is too late. Councilors voted with their emotions last night (and made me the butt of several jokes about being opposed to it). Councilor Litz even talked about global warming and Katrina (can’t remember the last time we were hit by a hurricane).
In an Argus Leader interview, Councilor Costello, the loan dissenter had this to say;
“You have to measure the risk with the cost,” he said. “We know we have flood protection.”
Of course the AL editorial board gave the decision a big old thumbs up;
And it would be sad if the bond vote-repeal effort connection somehow becomes a campaign issue in the 2010 mayoral race.
Oh, it will be an issue!
Yes, the council has a duty to gather all pertinent information that might influence its decisions, and that includes the effect of the bond vote on the repeal effort.
But given that due process has been upheld, it was appropriate – indeed necessary – for the council to move forward.
The Lizard King Danced tonight.
Our initiative petition to decrease the sales tax is null and void, and apparently was before we even started. According to city’s bonding agent (who holds older bonds with us against the 1.92% rate) If we were to try to reduce the tax to 1.90% we could be sued for the full amount borrowed against that rate already by the city, $165 million dollars. Sorry, but I don’t have that kind of money. But at least we were able to educate some people in the community about the wasteful spending going on at city hall.
And more of it happened tonight. Seven councilors approved a $38 million dollar loan to pay off the levees before we got Federal aid. Too bad. It will cost taxpayers over $12 million in interest plus $38 in principal to pay for something that the FEDS probably would have given us money for, now they have no obligation to pay us back.
Too bad.
Kudos to Councilor Costello for voting against it.