Sioux Falls School District bond election to use ‘Vote Centers’

by

So the School District couldn’t say a damn thing at Monday night’s board meeting, but seem to sing like a canary once the cameras are off. They are proposing to run the election, in which we will be asked to bond well over $300 million dollars, using super precincts or vote centers.

While I am not a fan of vote centers, they CAN work if you work them correctly. Unfortunately, this is NOT the scenario we want. Why?

First, the obvious. This is a lot of money. We should open this election to the entire community at ALL precincts and we should put it in with the general election. Having a special election in the middle of September with only a handful of precincts guarantees a very low voter turnout. The school district argues they must have their levees and budget set by September 30. Poppycock, they can amend the budget and levees at any time and have admitted this already on KSOO and in the Argus Leader.

Second, Bev Chase with the School District, who will be running this election, has a terrible record on running elections. They should be contracting with the county to handle this. Last time she ran a stand alone election in 2017 there was a myriad of problems, absentee voting was locked up when she was on lunch break, many people who voted were not reported to the SOS data base that they voted in the election (I have had at least 3 voters tell me this), there were NO precincts in the entire northern part of the city.

Third, we have no idea what kind of E-Poll book they will be using and who will be running the software. This could open the election up to tampering, hacking, and voter fraud. If the software does not work correctly, people could vote multiple times at multiple precincts. Hart Interactive who originally created the hardware and software for E-Poll books no longer supports them. BPro tried to get them to work in the primaries and failed so miserably that the SOS said she will not allow their use in the General. So what tricks does the School District have up their sleeve?

Who will tabulate the votes? A hand count isn’t going to cut it. This needs to be tabulated and data needs to be generated so the SOS knows who voted. This is a large sum of money that will increase our taxes over the next 25-30 years, this isn’t electing some yahoo to the school board.

We have made the local chapter of the ACLU aware of these issues, some may be a violation of Federal Election laws, hopefully they will look into it.

Sioux Falls School District has NO PLAN to staff $300 Million in new schools

by

Maybe Sioux Falls School Board Member, Cynthia Mickelson just didn’t know the answer, but when asked the other day while addressing the League of Women Voters about the school bonds, she was asked where the money will come from to staff the new schools.

Obviously, when you build three new schools and spend $40 million to upgrade other schools, you will need additional staff. When Cynthia was asked the question, she pretty much said, “We will figure it out.”

The $300 million bond is ONLY for capital improvements and will not be used for operating. On top of that, the levy will change so they could change the tax structure for paying off the bonds. In other words LESS money coming in for operating.

So how will they staff the new schools? I expect another small opt-out initiated by the school board. But seriously, shouldn’t the Super and Board explain to the public how they will fund these schools operations? Utilities? Maintenance? Teacher/Admind/support staff salaries?

Good Question.

Add it up

by

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7y9yChV478

I’m blushing a bit, for the 2nd time in one night, a different television reporter decided to look into what I have been discussing, a lot of tax and fee increases (KELO-TV screenshot);

While this is just the beginning, absent was the compounding of taxes, fees, levees, etc. I’m pretty sure this will be the LAST time we hear about this on the TV screen.

On a unrelated note, I hung out with members of the Femmes at the Top Hat after their show at the Pavilion. They didn’t give me any tax solutions.

ACLU of SD opposes Minnehaha County OPT-OUT

by

In response to the county commission’s consideration of an opt-out of property tax limits, Heather Smith, the executive director of the ACLU of South Dakota, sent the attached letter to the Minnehaha County Commissioners this afternoon.  She’s also planning to attend the meeting on July 10.

DOC: ACLU SD ltr to Minnehaha County Commission PDF

Please take a look at the attached letter, but in brief, the ACLU of South Dakota is asking Minnehaha County Commissioners to shift away from funding incarceration and raising property taxes to find new approaches to our current criminal justice system. Our “tough-on-crime” policies have led to more arrests and increased costs, but don’t actually do anything to address the underlying causes of crime. Though the Commission may not have direct control over things such as who is charged with a crime and how many people are incarcerated in the county’s jail, it certainly has influence. There are myriad reforms that could be made on the local and state level that would keep our communities safe while also cutting costs.

In light of this proposed property tax opt-out and the school board’s proposal for its own opt-out, surely we could be looking at some alternatives so that the burden on Sioux Falls taxpayers/property owners isn’t so great.

Janna Farley, Communications Director, American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota

DaCola Notes: In my conversation with commissioner Barth about the matter, I told him that the CC needs to have more control over the State’s Attorney’s Office when it comes to expenditures with certain prosecution cases.

 

 

 

GROCERY SHOPPERS PAID MORE FOR THEIR FOOD . . .

by

GROCERY SHOPPERS PAID MORE FOR THEIR FOOD

TO MAKE POSSIBLE SD’S SUCCESS AT THE SUPREME COURT

For 14 years South Dakotans have been paying higher tax on their groceries in order to make it possible for South Dakota to win its tax case in the Supreme Court.

How did this happen? The preparation for the state to collect sales tax on online sales caused a significant hike in the food tax. It did not cause a tax increase on any other purchases, only food.

Before 2003, South Dakota cities had been limited to 1% tax on food. Then, tax “streamlining” rules were needed in order to position the state to tax online sales. The new rules said each city may have only one sales tax rate, even though the rules allowed the state itself to have a lower rate on food, even zero tax.

With the new rules, cities’ food taxes rose from 1% to 2% in most South Dakota cities, rather than lowering the tax on other things to match the 1% on food. Some cities had not been taxing on food at all, such as Rapid City, Mitchell, Spearfish, Pierre, New Underwood, and Wentworth. They were forced to start taxing groceries.

“The higher food tax has meant South Dakotans have been paying more for every breakfast, lunch and dinner for 14 years now to help win the Supreme Court case on collecting online sales tax,” says Cathy Brechtelsbauer, state coordinator for Bread for the World.

“We saw it coming back then. Some legislators told us they would cut the food tax when the state finally receives tax from online sales,” she remembers, “so the next legislature should recognize the contribution grocery shoppers have made to this Supreme Court success and make the next tax cut a cut in the food tax.”

With cities still allowed only one tax rate, a food tax cut would need to be a reduction in the state’s portion of the sales tax.

News release, June 25, 2018

BREAD FOR THE WORLD -SOUTH DAKOTA

Cathy Brechtelsbauer, state coordinator, 605-335-6222, ryebread@breadrising.org

DaCola Note; This is one of the reasons I objected the half-cent increase in sales taxes to pay teachers. I found it counter productive to increase taxes on food to pay educators more. I would propose a total tax ban on food, not just a decrease. I know this has gone to the voters twice already and failed, but with the SCOTUS ruling I think this would be the perfect opportunity to end the food tax. I also think the state legislature should end exemptions on certain items that are not taxed now, like advertising. I have also argued that this won’t help main street businesses one iota. Even by taxing online items and essentially increasing the costs of those items so they can implement new accounting software, online shopping will still be less expensive due to volume, and more convenient because of choices. I also think the money raised by the state in new taxes will quickly be ate up by expanding government agencies that will be responsible in collecting these taxes. At the end of the day we have accomplished nothing but increasing prices for consumers to grow government. Thanks Marty Jackley and Deb Peters, for nothing.