SF City Council

No money for salaries but plenty for fancy-smancy windows

Oh, the Pavilion continues to amaze and bewilder;

The winning bid, submitted by Sunkota Construction, came in at $779,400. The project had a budget of $925,576 with an estimated price tag of $791,000.

Funny, how all of sudden once the media covered the Pavilion and city hall screw-up over the cost the city decides to be fiscally responsible on a project. See what happens when the MSM in Sioux Falls tells the citizens what are beaurcrats are up to? They become more accountable.

Good thing I wasn’t at the SF City Council Info meeting yesterday

I would have needed this to get out of there.

View the BS slinging here (click on Jan 12 – info meeting).

First it started out about how rezoning issues with Sanford need to be handled differently in the future. Councilors point out how poorly the way notices are posted and mailed out to homeowners. Amazing. If you were opposed to how it was handled why did all of you (besides Staggers) voted for it?! You knew before the vote that this stuff wasn’t handled correctly, you should have voted NO! Saying something after the fact is a wash. If you want to send a message about how the zoning was handled you do it when you vote – not piss and moan about it after the vote at some little known info meeting. Christ-sakes-alive, please shut off your TVs and engage your brains before voting at meetings.

Secondly the Pavilion showed up to tell the community about a new program(?). They will be open from 5 – 8 PM on the first Friday of each month. Hate to break it to you, been there, done that. I suggest as the marketing manager of the Pavilion you dig up past records about your programs. BTW, it was wildly successful, so wondering why you got rid of it in the first place. You should be open every single night from 5-8 PM so people who go to school or work during the day can enjoy your programs. Of course, that would make sense . . .

Thirdly, a info meeting would not be complete without another theatrical performance by Greg ‘Grease Lightning’ Jamison and his sidekicks Vernon and ‘Biceps’ Bob Litz. I could go into a long description about windbreakers and AC/DC shirts, but ya gotta see it for yourself. It is about a new Event Center and imaginary checks. Funny stuff.

I will summarize that they now are comparing us to the Fargo Dome (I guess they gave up on the Qwest Center comparison). Well, for one, Fargo is a massive college town, there isn’t a larger events center for hours and hours away, and they haven’t sold out many events over the past 20 years (Thanks Costello for that tidbit of info). Staggers, of course is the only councilor to remind them raising retail taxes to build this is a very bad idea, and suggests they use private money instead. Then De magically makes up facts, again. ” The last poll I saw has shown overwhelming support for a new event center”- . (Paraphrasing) De does this quite a bit, so I’m challenging you De, if this is true FREAKING PROVE IT! I do agree people may support it, but not thru retail taxes. It will fall flat on it’s face if you plan to build this with a tax increase on groceries, etc. De also mentions that our tax burden is low in Sioux Falls, yup, and wages are to De.

Is the Sioux Falls Department of Parks & Recreation a monstrosity?

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.

SF City Council Meeting – Tonight – 7 PM

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.