I can follow your rules . . . what were the rules again?

by

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RElxLbuZqU[/youtube]

A dramatic piece of Sioux Falls City Council theater just happened on January 19, 2016. Rex Rolfing was supposed to present the rental car tax ballot proposal but decided to break Council rules by having a private citizen do it instead. Poor Dale Froehlich, chairman of the SFDF board who was doing Rex’s job, was left standing bewildered at the podium as the Mayor and Rex Rolfing argue Robert’s Rules and Council procedure.

A few Council concepts to understand:
First, the City Council has a period for Public Input at the beginning of every meeting where anyone can show up to talk about any topic not a resolution or 2nd reading.
Second, the 1st reading is a procedure reserved for staff or Council members to present the item for further discussion and then establish the vote.
Third, No private citizen is allowed to present an item for final vote placement.
Fourth, Don’t arrange questionably legal secret Executive Sessions to place your personal projects on the agenda and ballot.
Fifth, Don’t argue with the chair in public, it’s not respectful and it could be hurtful.

Let’s just say, all but Rex sided with the mayor. Dale went to sit down with Tim Stanga as Rex placed the motion to a stunned room. Can we say it was a proposal for disaster?

UPDATE: I’m all for visitor taxes, but I also like transparency, and the democratic process

by

A new visitor tax is being proposed in Sioux Falls. Okay (A copy of the proposed ordinance DOC: rental-fees;

The Sioux Falls Development Foundation wants Sioux Falls voters to decide whether to enact a $3 per day tax on most vehicles rented in the city to help fund economic development.

I have no issue with this, well a couple, and I will get to that. I have often thought that the room tax in Sioux Falls is NOT high enough, and having another visitor fee or tax is fine with me, as long as it is directed properly. But here are my issues, and I had to pinch myself agreeing with councilor Dean Karsky;

Councilor Dean Karsky said insurance companies often pay for rental cars for customers involved in car accidents while repairs are made. Protecting Sioux Falls residents from the proposed tax would help minimize any increase in insurance premiums that could result from a local car rental tax.

“80 percent of the rental cars are rented by non-residents of Sioux Falls, so if we could exempt residents from the tax, I think it would be the right thing to do,” he said.

Dean is right, that exemption should exist. This SHOULD be a visitor tax, not a local tax.

I also question the city take. It is estimated they will be paid $175K for administering the tax, which I find high. An almost 18% take is nothing in comparison to what CC processors take, which is around 1-3%. Seems like a city payoff to get on board.

I also wonder if getting this on the Spring ballot should not have been done thru petitioning actual voters instead of the city council, and the almost silence on this initiative up until this point.

The City Council is scheduled to hear a first reading of the ordinance Jan. 19. If given the council’s blessing, a public vote on April 12 would be required before collection of the proposed tax starts in July.

Why has the public been left out on this tax increase? Sounds like they wanted it to go under the radar. I have no problem with the public voting on this as they should, but the process up until this point has been anything by democratic. The Development Foundation should be ashamed.

UPDATE: After talking to several people about the fee proposal today, I’m starting to lean completely against it especially after a foot soldier who follows city government sent me this today;

How will we be able to exempt local citizens?
1.  Is it even legal to say that if you are from Sioux Falls let’s say you don’t have to pay the tax, but if you are not you have to pay the tax, on the same good/service sold at the same place?
2.  Is that even good policy?
3.  Assuming we do this and its legal (exempt locals) that brings up the question of administration and compliance.
    a.  I assume the rental car agency is going to have to determine if you are in the city or not when you reserve the car and charge it or not charge it.  There is an administrative burden there.
   b.  When you implement something like this sort of local tax, and it has a specific clause excepting local citizens, that brings in compliance issues.  Who is going to audit or oversee these businesses to make sure the tax is collected, and waived in the right circumstances?
As an aside, there is also the philosophical discussion about what taxes should be and how to administer them.  You might have a cigarrette tax to try to get people to not smoke (change behavior) and pay for health costs for it.  You might have a booze tax to pay for all its social ills.  You might charge a wheel tax to people who license cars, in recognition that those cars are breaking up the roads, and those roads need to be maintained.  In those instances there is a clear cause/effect type relationship.  Those who benefit from a service, or, those who impose a cost on the whole society pay to address those costs.
What does someone renting a car have in relationship to paying for sewer lines out at Foundation Park?  There really is no relationship.  Its picking one specific industry and taxing that narrow activity, and really for something that isn’t related at all to the people using it, or, the activity they are engaging in.
Phase 1 of this development they say will generate I think they said 150 million+ in construction activity.  Phase 1 is 1/4 of the property.  So let’s say this will be all told 600 million of construction.  The infrastructure is 40 million.  So why not just wrap it into the total cost and impose the extra cost to those who buy parcels there?
Sure there would be a benefit, more taxes, more jobs from this development.  But the thing is any time someone starts a little business in any corner of our city they generate more taxes and jobs.  They all have some impact.  Some more than others obviously.  But some little guy starting a restaurant doesn’t necessarily have the connections to get a tax imposed for them, by their government, and interestingly on a customer base that may have nothing to do with or ever use their services.

 

Half a penny Bullsh*t!

by

I’m not going to link all the feel good stories about getting taxed more to give a pay raise to people who work 9 months out of the year to educate children that are not mine.

I already pay their wages with my property taxes.

I figured as a single dude I will paying about $130 more a year in regressive retail taxes so a certain sector of our South Dakota society can make more then me, though I work just as hard.

Do I think teachers deserve more pay. Hell Yah! But I also think balancing ag taxes with urban property taxes would fill this gap. I also think a corporate education income tax would fill this gap.

Why is it that the poorest among us should fill a gap that can be fixed by re-organizing or re-porposing current taxes could fix?

The governor’s plan is not only short-sighted it is directly targeted at the have-nots to pay for the things the rich don’t want to. Not only should the governor and his minions be ashamed at such a half-ass plan, but anyone drooling over it should be to.

We can do better in South Dakota. Tax wealth to educate our children. It only makes sense.

BID Tax Buffoonery

by

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePkOJA9ckTU[/youtube]

Still not sure what Mayor Huether thought he would accomplish by putting together this committee. The probable outcome doesn’t surprise me;

A fund used to attract conventions and visitors to Sioux Falls won’t be diverted to brick-and-mortar projects anytime soon.

Steve Westra, chief operating officer for hotel owner Hegg Companies and a vocal critic who has questioned the need for the review, said the review committee was an unsuccessful “money grab” by the mayor. He said he appreciates that the committee isn’t recommending capital spending as a legitimate use for the fund.

“(The mayor) has taken several runs with trying to use dollars outside of what it’s intended for,” Westra said. “We get the sense that the mayor sees it as a road block.”

Well, you know how I feel as a citizen constantly chasing down the spending habits of this mayor, they are out of control. This is evident in his attempt to raise rates on Paratransit (instead of just streamlining it) and to eliminate free swim passes for poor kids.

Turbak blamed those perceptions among the hotel and travel industries as a reason for the group’s failure to come up with bolder recommendations.

“I think the influence of the strenuous defense of the status quo is certainly reflected in the recommendations,” Turbak said.

As I have said before, when the status quo is working (Using the BID tax to promote visitors) you don’t need to fiddle with it. Westra is exactly right, this was just a ‘money grab’ scheme by the mayor and his cronies.