While we rob Federal paybacks on Levees for Indoor Pool, we have to borrow money for Sewers

by

Remember when we got over $11 million back for building the levees? This would have been the perfect project for us to spend the money on;

A massive project to replace a sewer line that carries almost all of Sioux Falls’ wastewater won’t cost taxpayers as much after the state approved more than $30 million in low-interest loans to pay for the work.

The 1.25 percent interest loans offered by the state will be paid back over 10 years.

“On that amount of dollars, that’s a substantial savings,” said Cotter, referring to the higher interest rates associated with traditional loans.

Hey Mark, we could have saved 100% if we would have paid for the project with the Levee repayment fund and surplus in the budget. But that’s right, we need to build playthings, they are more important. Maybe the next time the sewer system threatens a backup, we can use the new indoor pool to store all of the sewage instead of Covell Lake or pouring it down residential streets.

If we truly had a mayor who was concerned about prudence, he would have allocated the money correctly and put the pool on hold. But that would take someone who actually cares about the average tax payer and not himself and the special interests.

BTW, I heard the indoor tennis facility’s membership drive isn’t doing so well. Rough road, isn’t it Mike, when you have to spend your own money on play things? Can we get our $500,000K back please?

Posted in: Public Utilities, Public Works, Sioux Falls

UPDATED: Borrowing money for Levees to build a ‘debt free’ indoor pool

by

14269175_BG1

Maybe we could use Levee fine monies to pay for the indoor pool? (Image: KSFY)

Understanding the city budget isn’t easy, and definitely not my forte, but understanding the city budget under the leadership of a subprime credit card salesman is even harder. Huether is good at playing the marketing game of deceptive language when he wants to spend our (borrowed) money. Just look at the Events Center, he is constantly telling us it will be built under budget (without mentioning most of the utility hookup and parking lot improvements are coming from the CIP and enterprise funds NOT from the EC bonds). This is ‘how’ you build an Events Center, ‘under budget’.

He is pulling a similar word game with the indoor pool, last night at the city council meeting his finance director, Tracy Turbak, took center stage and told us this about the indoor pool funding;

“. . . without the use of any further debt.”

What Tracy didn’t tell us is that they are currently using the Levee debt to pay for the indoor pool. Confused yet? I will explain. A few years back when King Dave was running our little village on the Big Poo, FEMA came in and said that a whole lot of people (retailers) were in the flood plain by the Mall, and they would need flood insurance if we didn’t raise the levees. Okay, no problem, that’s the job of the CORPS, right? Yup, but they were not going to give us the money, yet, so we took out a bond to pay for the levees, in hopes the Feds would pay us back, eventually. Well imagine my surprise when the Fed’s sent us a check for the levee work last year. Great. What would a logical and prudent city government do with a repayment for a bond debt? Pay back the bond? Not so fast says Turbak, we cannot pay back the bond in full until 2018(?). Okay, well why don’t we do one of two things then, either put the money in a savings account until the repayment date, or spend the money on similar infrastructure projects, like drainage, or sewer or even roads?

Then comes Mr. Money burning a hole in his pocket, Mike ‘Rack up the Debt’ Huether. He decides that we can now build an indoor pool with the levee debt that we have incurred. Who on the council would have thought the night they approved the levee bond they would take the repayment to build an indoor pool?

Now that’s real ‘vision’.

The moral of the story? Turbak and the administration are half-lying when they say there will be NO debt associated with building an indoor pool. We eventually will have to pay off the levee debt. I wonder how the swim teams and parks & rec department plan to pay off that debt? It might become suddenly very expensive to swim at an indoor public pool, but hey, we all have to sacrifice something to keep our town safe from floods and childhood obesity/diabetes.

Now I’m confused.

But the funding isn’t the only issue with this grand scheme, Tracy and Mike have some partners in crime, literally.

The city clerk and city attorney have also chimed in with their assessments of the latest pool petition;

“They would need approximately 5,200 valid signatures. So that will require in the range of 7,000 to 7,500 signatures for us to take a look and go through and verify,” said Hogstad.

Lori says 7,000 to 7,500 signers needed. Already planning a 20% petition signature rejection?

David Pfeifle, Sioux Falls city attorney, says the group would have to get the required signatures within the next month to impact the pool’s progress.

Impact the pool’s progress? I wonder what secret rule book he is reading from? Seems the dog ate Fiddle-Faddle’s homework quite a bit in law school. The city could issue contracts, who cares. The city could start all the maneuvers to start the project and it all comes to a stop upon submission and certification of petitions.

The pool construction could be stopped even at the site preparation, foundations or at any stage once the completed petitions are filed. It does not matter what the city does. They could even tear apart the current pool. Does this concern you?

This is an Initiative. The group is proposing something. No formal city council votes have been taken prior to the filing, so the 180 day rule is in force. Upon submission, the signatures less than or equal to 180 days are valid for counting toward the goal.

If they had started the petition process after next week’s official vote, it becomes a Referral and the 20 day signature collection rule is in force.

The indoor pool advocates, the city officials, VA and the “anywhere but Spellerberg” folks need to hammer out a solution before the city is in big time legal butt hurt. Imagine issuing contracts with an indoor pool architect or contractor and the company starts work only to be stopped because the petition drive is successful. Can you imagine the court costs the city will face when this hits the fan? They are going to need more than a therapy pool to fix what ails them.

This could easily be dealt with. Subprime Mike could bring the sides together and use the new petition as blueprint for the indoor pool project. Or he could choose to not work with them, like he did with SON, (which will be tied up in court until Walmart submits) and watch the city scramble to move the pool, approve new funding, locate to a different site just because the indoor proponents didn’t do anything more than coerce their friends in the parks department or on the council.

One thing is for sure, the petition gatherers are well known for getting the signatures they need. Why doesn’t the mayor and the city administration understand this?  Once again it is the city government screwing up and spreading ‘SMOKE’. Real leaders would bring everyone together and find a workable compromise. What is MMM afraid of?

Let’s get an indoor pool built that the voters have already told us they want. But let’s do it by abiding by the petition/election laws, partnering with private entities so we don’t have to take money from a debt repayment fund and by working with all parties.

But see, that isn’t the way bullies operate.

UPDATE (another theory sent to me by a reader):

Consider Tracy Turbak has tried to go get bonding for the indoor pool. Could it be the city could not get bonding for the pool?

Now imagine this, Tracy went to get bonds and because of the Quit Claim deed or other ownership issues, the city’s bonding plans had been rejected.

What if bonding agencies, firms or individuals performing due diligence asked what guarantees are in place if the VA seized the property?

Now two days after the election, Tracy has a miracle funding source of unobligated refund cash because he could not get it anywhere else?

The cash has been burning a hole in the mayor’s back pocket and many of us expected something unusual after the voting but…

 

Posted in: SF City Council, Sioux Falls, Sioux Falls Parks and Rec

The real reason the levees had to be raised in Sioux Falls

by

As I said all along, this is the REAL reason the levees had to be raised;

Once the flood-control measures are in place, probably by the end of next year, the Federal Emergency Management Agency will redo its flood-plain maps and. In turn, fewer properties will be in the flood plain – saving money for property owners.

“Walmart, Sam’s Club, The Empire Mall, Target are some of the businesses” that will be taken out of the flood plain, said project manager Tom Berkland.

Instead of worrying about the 1% chance that Walfart might get flooded we should have been more concerned about all the poopy in people’s basements. And isn’t that the crux of it all? While we received record rains, besides a little street flooding, no where along the river (within Sioux Falls) there was flooding. Imagine that!?

It’s not only a state policy but a city policy;

“Big Business first, citizens second.”

Posted in: FEMA, Floodplain, Floods, Sioux Falls

So how much did the levee circus cost Sioux Falls taxpayers?

by

I guess it never really crossed my mind until yesterday when Quen Be De praised Northside Davey in the informational meeting, “I just think Dave has done a great job of working with our Washington delegation in getting us funds for our projects in Sioux Falls during his administration. I just hope the next three mayors can even come close to what he has been able to accomplish.” (paraphrasing). After I puked in my garbage can I started thinking about that statement. First off, we still are waiting for Lewis & Clark and railroad relocation funds from the Feds, something Dave has not accomplished. Also, they are still in discussions with the Corp of Engineers as to how much money we are gonna get for the levees. And lastly the only reason the levee bonds were called off was because FEMA said that people in the affected area don’t have to buy flood insurance. Go figure. This was all about saving business men and developers insurance premiums not about our safety, because if they were really concerned about our safety, the project would still be moving forward.

Business as usual in city hall.

But how much did this runaround cost us, even if we ditched the bonds? Last Fall councilor Staggers asked the city to give him a list of consulting fees paid out in 2009. He still has not received the list and they continue to deny (a sitting councilor) the numbers. They say he wants to use it for political reasons. My guess is that the amount is so high, that it will for sure become a political issue if it is released. If I had to ballpark it, I would guess the city probably spend close to $12-15 million a year on consulting fees, which includes legal advice.

This has gotten me wondering how much it cost taxpayers to explore the bonds to begin with (including flying a consultant in from Minneapolis in an attempt to scare off our tax initiative petition drive). Just because we only took out a portion of the bonds for the bridge, doesn’t mean they weren’t charging us by the hour. Ironically, the bridge could have been paid for out of the CIP budget, so no consulting fees or interest would have been paid at all.

Why all the secrecy around consulting fees? Because I have a feeling if we knew the real numbers we would have to clean our drawers. I hope the next three mayors aren’t even close to accomplishing what Munson has done, in fact, I hope they go in a completely different direction.

Posted in: FEMA, Floodplain, Floods, Munson, SF City Council, Sioux Falls

Tell the Sioux Falls City Council it is time to lift restrictions on the recreation trail

by

I have been working on a new re-write of the bicycling ordinance so it would allow electric devices with throttles to safely use the shared used recreational trail, this is what I came up with so far;

95.031 WHEELED VEHICLES

Wheeled vehicles in the parks and upon recreation trails shall abide by the ordinances governing the operation of such vehicles and need not be limited to paved areas. Trail Users shall operate their vehicles in a prudent manner and with due regard for the safety of others and the preservation of park property. Users must keep to the right on recreation trails unless passing someone. Vehicle operators will apply the “10-10 Rule” – wheeled vehicles are required to be traveling at less than 10mph when within 10 feet of pedestrians. Maximum speed on recreation trails is 18 MPH (29 KMH).

95.031.1 WHEELED VEHICLES

PROHIBITED ON RECREATION TRAIL.

It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or operate any vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine, any licensed vehicle, any vehicle with side-by-side seating or any vehicle designed specifically for road usage. Vehicle limitation and trail user etiquette and speed limit signs will be posted at each entry point on the recreation trail. This section shall not apply to or limit authorized vehicles on the levees for maintenance, patrolling, and flood emergency purposes. 

I am opposed to a speed limit, but I figured setting it at 18 would be the most logical since most E-Bikes are set at that max speed.

As I have discussed with several councilors and the Active Transportation Board, the real danger on the rec trail is speed and those who cannot ride safely because of the speed. Most people who are using electric assist devices like E2 bikes are usually in that 70 year old range and ride responsibly. In fact over the past week I have been counting bike commuters on the trail near 26th street. Over half of the bikes are E2s.

Even the owner of a local bike shop commented at the meeting if people are using these devices on the rec trail, what does that say about the safety of riding these devices on our roads.

Well, we didn’t get a very good rating recently in that department.

I’m not saying this will fix all the problems on the rec trail, but as the Parks Director pointed out at the meeting there hasn’t been any serious injuries on the bike trail in recent history. The current ordinance which restricts these devices has been on the books for 5 years, passed in the middle of winter, has never been noticed (until recently) and has never been enforced.

It is time to look at doing this differently, and the council is coming around. I do know that councilors Neitzert and Cole are working on a re-write that would lift restrictions and impose a speed limit.

I encourage you to email the entire council HERE and give them your feelings on the ordinance change. If you ride an E2 or different electric device let the council know why you ride it and why it is important to allow them on the rec trail.

While I have stopped riding my E2 on the rec trail, many others have NOT. Just today in a short one hour ride I saw ten E2s (all over the age of 70) an electric skateboard (he was over 50) and a one-wheel (teenager).

Posted in: Bike Trail, SF City Council, Sioux Falls