Anti-Citizen (Municipal) League continues to lobby against our best interests

by

The taxpayer funded legislative lobbyist Muni-League decided to rear their head again with the city council’s supposed ‘legislative’ priorities (Item #15). But some councilors weren’t buying it. Stehly had an issue with TIFs, some wondered how the county’s priorities got mixed in with it, and councilor Brekke was curious when they even talked about it.

The rumor going around is that a couple of councilors met with Minnehaha County Chair, Heiberger and cooked this up with the help of the Muni-League.

And let’s talk about them. We pay them to lobby for higher taxes (they continually try to sucker the legislature into letting cities raise an extra penny tax for ‘special projects’ with a sunset clause. NO taxes ever ‘sunset’. Once implemented, they are there forever. Look at the 3rd penny entertainment tax in SF for paying off Pavilion bonds. That tax was supposed to sunset after the bonds were paid off. That was 4-5 years ago. Still exists. They also support TIF’s which are nothing more than a tax rebate/welfare program for developers. Most times they have little to NO economic impact except raising property taxes on the rest of us.

It’s time the city cuts ties with the Muni-League. The Sioux Falls city council already has a legislative director/operations manager that makes close to $100K a year. The council praises his hard work, and he is very capable of lobbying for the city. As taxpayers we don’t need to pay another lobbyist to lobby against our interests.

Sioux Falls School Bond; Is it $2 a month or early payoff?

by

The more I think about the recent comments from the school district’s bond counsel about the $110 million in interest ‘scare tactic’, the more it just doesn’t add up.

On one hand they say you will pay $2 a month for $185K home valuation for the life of the loan (25 years at 4%) but on the other hand they say the $110 in interest isn’t fair because they will ‘pay it off early’.

You can’t have both!

If the loan goes the full 25 years, the $2 a month is true, and also is the $110 million in interest. If they pay it off early, they only have one way to do that, change the tax levee to bring in more money. This is the ONLY way they would pay the loan off early is if they increase taxes, which would change the $2 a month argument.

Let’s face it, this is a ‘bait and switch’. They know they will have to try to pay off these bonds ASAP so they can borrow more down the road, and the only way they will be able to do that is increasing our property taxes.

So please tell us, is it $2 a month for 25 years or early payoff for tax increases later? Still waiting for the school district to apply transparency to this process not just talk about it.

Will Sioux Falls Adults be looking at $10K per capita debt in a couple of years?

by

Before all the math wizards start freaking out, I want you to know the numbers below are approximates, but close. One of the numbers I had trouble finding was the SF School District current debt. From looking at past data I believe it is hovering at that $100 million mark, but I am unsure, it could be higher. I based the number on their yearly debt service of $13 million which would put them a little above that $100 million mark. I’m also spit balling the city debt a bit, because I am basing that on 2017 numbers minus some major payoffs.

The Sioux Falls Adult population numbers are very, very close.

Where it gets a little sticky is I am using the entire county of Minnehaha’s debt while only including SF adults. I also leave Lincoln county out (I would be surprised if they had any debt) and the fact that NOT all SF adult residents live in the Sioux Falls school district.

Yes friends, living in Sioux Falls is a ‘Hot Mess’ of taxes. In fact your neighbor just across the street could be paying a different property tax rate than you, it’s that weird.

But, I also think the enormity of the numbers helps people better grasp that if you live in Minnehaha County, within the city limits of Sioux Falls and the SF School District, your per capita (govt) debt could easily reach $10K in the next 4-5 years.

This is why I often shake my head when the school district talks about $2 a month tax increase, or the Water Department talks about $.30 a month water and sewer increases, they never mention the current and future debt we will be taking on. It’s a boatload.

Realistically, how many adult working SF residents could cut a check for $10K tomorrow without borrowing it or hurting their personal finances? My guess it is probably less than 1%. We don’t live our lives this way, why should our government?

The irony is that our debt is half of what T. Denny is worth. Hint. Hint.

We could finally put the Sanford Falls sign up.

The ‘Spin’ continues from the school district

by

I often chuckle when people in government start comparing your personal finances to government finances. They are different. Why? Because it really doesn’t matter what you spend personally because it is your money. When government spends money, it is OUR money collectively and we have the RIGHT to know.

While the School District has finally admitted what principal and interest will cost if the loan goes to full maturity, they still are playing games with that figure;

“There’s a $110 million of interest on that over time, unless we pay it off early like we did in 1997,” Morrison said. “But it’s kind of the way you think about it. We’re only going to get $190 million in bond proceeds that we have to spend on the project.”

It is a proposed 25 year loan, so that would be $110 million over the term of the loan, that is what needs to be told to taxpayers. We have NO idea if they will pay it off early because they have NOT presented a plan to pay it off early and have NO idea how they would. Comparing it to the 1997 bond is unfair, that loan was $30 million, this bond is over 6x more. It needs to be stated to taxpayers, ‘If the loan goes to full maturity it COULD cost the taxpayers $110 million in interest and principal.’ That is the only FACT here, because they have no idea if it will be paid off early. If they have a plan or scenario, please show us, otherwise stick to the facts.

Grimmond called the $300 million number a “scare-tactic” by naysayers, and compared the process to how home buyers talk about buying a new home with their friends and family.

It is NOT a scare-tactic, it is a FACT.

“Nobody goes out there and says, ‘I bought a $200,000 house, but in interest it’s going to cost me $400,000 over 40 years,'” Grimmond said. “…They don’t look at that final number. Should they? Maybe.

“But if you ask the naysayers, ‘How much are you paying on your house with principal and interest included in it?’ I know they don’t know that number. It would be like crickets going off, but they want to hold the school district to that same standard.”

Like I said above, it is up to me if I want to know what that number is, it’s my personal expenditure, but this is public money and the taxpayers have the right to know what that payoff amount would be if it went to maturity. It’s similar to how Federal Law was changed a few years ago that requires credit card companies to show on your statement what it will cost you if you make the minimum payment. Taxpayers have a right to know what that will be if the school district makes the minimum payment on the bonds, that is $110 million. And while that is NOT a scare-tactic, it certainly is a scary number, and that is why they are trying really hard to hoodwink us into thinking they would pay it off early. The only way they will be able to pay it off early is if they increase our taxes, which brings us to their other snow job;

“As the value of a home goes up, your taxes go up proportionately,” Morrison said. “Let’s say your home went up 10 percent over the next 10 years. Then yes, that $2 will be $2.20, but you’re enjoying the value of your home that just went up $20,000, too. But it’s the same thing. It’s that time value of money. That $2 won’t go the same distance in 10 years.”

Than why do you continue to tell people if they own a $185K house they will be paying $2 a month through the life of the bonds? Your home value WILL go up and LEVEES will go up, that means the $2 a month WILL go up. In other words my $185K house won’t be a $185K next year, so I will be paying more that $2 a month, and that of course will continue to go up.

While I appreciate the school district addressing these issues, it doesn’t change the fact that they are facts, and facts seem to be getting in the way of their propaganda.

UPDATE: Sioux Falls School District Propaganda Machine in full swing

by

UPDATE: By the school district using their media department and resources to promote the election they may be violating state law (Link to OPINION HERE). Just listen to some of the language like “It’s not extravagant.” “It’s ONLY $2 a month.” “Vote centers make it CONVENIENT to vote.” “We have been TRANSPARENT.” “The Chamber of Commerce supports the bonds.”

Remember; There is NO plan on how to staff the new schools. The super precinct (13), special election will limit voter participation which will make it a low voter turnout, which means a couple thousand people will decide a $300 million dollar tax increase. The E-Poll books are unreliable and so is the person running the elections for the school district. Who will tabulate the votes? We need a paper trail. There has been no payoff amount given to the public, the school district claims they will ‘pay it off early’, but have no evidence how they will do that. The task force has several conflicts of interest. VOTE NO on this bond, it’s too much, we need to re-district first and explore adding on to existing schools!