SF City Council Meeting – Tonight – 7 PM

by

If you support our initiative to lower sales taxes I encourage you attend or watch the council meeting tonight at 7 PM. You can either watch it LIVE on cable channel 16 or online LIVE at http://siouxfalls.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2.

Our group will be confronting the council about the legality of borrowing money against a higher tax rate, in essence possibly ending our petition drive and tying the hands of future councils and mayors to reduce our taxes.

The Argus Leader wrote an article today on the matter;

A group of residents trying to lower the sales tax rate in Sioux Falls fears that tonight’s City Council vote to authorize $38 million in new bonds could undercut their efforts.

The group, Citizens for a Responsible Sales Tax, is collecting signatures to put the sales tax question to a citywide vote. If the group collects enough signatures, voters would have the choice of keeping the city’s share of sales tax at 2 percent or dropping it to 1.9 percent.

But the decision to issue bonds could put a stop to that effort because the South Dakota Constitution says that any revenue source pledged to pay off bonds or other debts is “irrepealable” until the debt is paid off.

Even if this ordinance would not undercut our effort I find it fiscally irresponsible to borrow money that we have to pay interest on for 20 years if there is a good possibility we will be getting the money interest free from Washington to do the project with the only disadvantage being we may have to wait an extra 12 months to move dirt. Big Whoop.

“It is kind of ironic that this is the way it’s going – that someone in Minneapolis is telling us about South Dakota law,” Staggers said.

Amundson said Sunday that bond work is highly specialized, one reason he wants Aby to render an opinion. Amundson also thinks the people working for the initiated measure should get their own opinion from their own lawyer.

“I think the person who it comes from is the attorney for the people who file the initiative,” he said.

Once again, another Munson political appointee forgets who pays his wages and who he works for. The people. We own the city, not the mayor. It seems he thinks his job is defending Munson from the very people who pay his salary and elected him. I think it may be time for him to reread his job description.

It’s unclear what, if any, effect today’s bond vote will have on efforts to lower the sales tax. Portions of the tax already are pledged to pay off other bonds. But in two previous citywide elections, the administration of Mayor Dave Munson has come out on the losing end – once to raise the sales tax to pay for a recreation center and once to borrow $12 million to build an indoor swimming pool.

And that is what is making us suspicious. If Munson can’t beat us at the polls, he’ll try to beat us with the horribly written state laws we have. Go figure. I have to be honest with you. If this does make the ballot I have no idea which way the vote will go. There will be a lot of support and good arguments on both sides. This isn’t about that, it’s about letting the citizens decide and educating the community on the spending spree Mr. Munson has been on.

Please join us tonight. I’ll be the one wearing the cowboy hat and boots.

Huh?

by

Either Jeff is mis-informed or not telling the truth – or KELO misquoted him;

SF Sales Tax Boost Starts Thursday

The City of Sioux Falls will see a boost in sales tax with the approach of the New Year.

If you shop in Sioux Falls, you will be paying an extra eight cents for every $100 you spend, starting Thursday.

“That’s the way we are able to update infrastructure, water, sewer, roads public facilities, buildings, schools, fire stations, that all comes through sales tax,” Jeffrey Schmitt of Planning and Building Services said.

What!! We were told the Sales Tax increase would garner an extra $5 million for the city to build ARTERIAL STREETS in new developments on the edge of town. But I see, as Pat Costello pointed out in an Argus Leader interview, nothing legally binds them to do it – and they took advantage of it.

In fact, Jeff’s quote is so full of it, I don’t know where to start. So let’s break down the BS, corn kernals and all;

– infrastructure (this is already budgeted and has nothing to do with the tax increase)

– water, sewer (this is paid thru the fees you pay every month NOT RETAIL TAXES!)

– public facilities, buildings, fire stations (This paid for thru various sources such as entertainment tax and regular retail taxes)

– Schools (Last I checked this was paid for thru our property taxes, unless Jeff would like to tell us something we don’t know)

Not sure if I am more disappointed that he is misleading us or that he is just taking marching orders?

I will say this. Dave Munson is a kind man who I think has a good heart and truly loves Sioux Falls. But if he thinks he is pulling a fast one over taxpayers, he is sadly mistaken.

Loany Bologna

by

Monday night (January 5th) the Sioux Falls city council will vote on an ordinance that would allow the city to borrow $38 million for needed infrastructure projects. Originally the money was budgeted and would not have had to be borrowed. Why the change? Munson and City Finance director Gene Rowenhorst claim that they need to borrow it now to make sure the projects get done next year. I’m all for the projects (levees and a bridge) I’m just suspicious of the timing and taking out a loan. Gene says we should not have ‘any worries’ because these projects were originally slated by the Corp of Engineers and since Obama is promising all kinds of infrastructure money we will ‘probably be paid back.’ I have a feeling that Obama will make good on his promise, but I also think that the money will go to communities who need it first (and those that are broke). Why give the city of Sioux Falls a check when they have paid for the project themselves? If I was the Federal Government I would be saying “You are doing fine on your own.”

What’s the solution then? Put off the projects until Washington’s check clears the bank. Yes, we need levees, but we have also been in a drought for the last four years, we ain’t flooding any time soon, we can wait another year.

I also think this is a diversion tactic by Munson to stop our initiative. State law is murky about borrowing money against an established municipal tax.

 5.   Irrepealable tax to repay debt of municipality or political subdivision.  Any city, county, town, school district or any other subdivision incurring indebtedness shall, at or before the time of so doing, provide for the collection of an annual tax sufficient to pay the interest and also the principal thereof when due, and all laws or ordinances providing for the payment of the interest or principal of any debt shall be irrepealable until such debt be paid

Article 13

We hope to get a clear and on the record opinion before Monday, cross your fingers.

Below is the extended version of the ordinance.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SD (THE “CITY”), AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF ITS SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS IN ONE OR MORE SERIES, AUTHORIZING THE USE OF THE PROCEEDS THEREOF TO PAY THE COSTS OF IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING DIVERSION DAM, CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DAM AT THE CONFLUENCE OF SKUNK CREEK AND THE BIG SIOUX RIVER, REBUILDING THE 41ST STREET BRIDGE AND RAISING THE LEVEES TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE FLOOD RISK REDUCTION ALONG THE BIG SIOUX RIVER, SKUNK CREEK, AND THE DIVERSION CHANNEL IN THE CITY, PLEDGING A PORTION OF THE SALES AND USE TAX PROCEEDS OF THE CITY TO THE PAYMENT OF SAID SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS, FIXING THE TERMS OF SUCH SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF ONE OR MORE

SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURES BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN SIOUX FALLS, AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE, EXECUTION, AND DELIVERY OF SUCH SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS.

WHEREAS, the City of Sioux Falls (the “City”) is authorized by Chapter 10-52 of the

South Dakota Codified Laws (the “Act”) to levy a non-ad valorem tax (as defined by the Act) on the sale, use, storage, and consumption of certain items taxed under Chapters 10-45 and 10-46 of the South Dakota Codified Laws, subject to certain exceptions, at a rate not to exceed 2.00 percent; and

WHEREAS, the City has adopted and enacted Ordinance No. 78-87, codified as

Sections 39-16 and 39-47 of the Revised Ordinances of the City imposing a sales and use tax authorized by the Act with the City at the rate of 1.00 percent, and Ordinance

Nos. 70-03, 14-04, 26-06, and 116-08, codified as Sections 39-16.1 and 39-47.1 of the

Revised Ordinances of the City (the “Second Penny Tax Ordinance”) imposing an additional sales and use tax authorized by the Act with the City at the rate of 1.00 percent effective January 1, 2009, (the tax imposed pursuant to the Second Penny Tax Ordinance being referred to herein as the “Second Penny Tax”); and

WHEREAS, the City is authorized to issue sales tax revenue bonds in anticipation of the collection of sales and use taxes pursuant to Section 10-52-2.10 and Chapter 6-8B of the South Dakota Codified Laws and to pledge the revenues from such taxes to the payment of such bonds; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Second Penny Tax Ordinance, the City is authorized to expend revenues from the Second Penny Tax for certain designated improvements, including the Project (as defined hereinafter), and the retirement of debt incurred for such improvements; and