2019 Petition ‘Wish List’

by

As I mentioned in my 2019 predictions, I would like to see several petitions taken out this year. I feel if a citizen ran committee is put together we can write several petitions at once, and circulate them all at the same time to cut down on the circulation work. This of course is my ‘Dream List’. Not sure if the right amount of sigs could be gathered and if so, people would vote for them;

  1. Major Changes to the Home Rule Charter. I’m still on the fence about how much I would like to change Home Rule, but I do know that the city council needs to have more power. They need to be the one vetting all legislation and ordinance changes, and they need to be setting the budget, not the mayor.
  2. Basing water and sewer rates on inflation, not on whims.
  3. Ending the TIF program in Sioux Falls. As we saw again today, building permit records were broken again for the 6th year in a row. Development DOES NOT need subsidizing by the taxpayers, they are doing quite well on their own.
  4. Require Directors and Managers who work in Emergency positions within the city to be Sioux Falls Citizens.
  5. Elect the Parks Board to 4-year terms in districts. I would even be okay with paying them a per meeting supplement.
  6. Apply a ticket fee to every ticket sold at the Events Center. Not sure what would be reasonable, but I think $5 would be a good starting point, with a review of the fee every 2 years. The fee would be directly put in the CIP to go towards paying the EC bonds. While this may only generate $2-3 Million per year, its better than what we have now, which is $0.
  7. Require the city to trim boulevard trees. This is doable if you put it on a reasonable rotation. As we are seeing with the Emerald Ash problem, the city DOES have the resources to do this.
  8. Require the city to pay up to 50% of sidewalk repairs adjacent to boulevard. Citizen could pay for the remainder through a property tax increase over a period of 5 years.
  9. Make the city attorney position an elected position for a 4-year term with NO term limits. I think this would keep the attorney’s office from becoming a political pawn for the mayor, it would also help the council to get fair advice on legislation. This person would also have the power to hire their staff, such as assistant attorneys and paralegals.

This of course is my ‘wish list’. Let me know what you think we could add or change.

After watching the Charter Revision Commission this past year, I have lost all hope that they will put anything meaningful on the ballot. They seem to be interested in protecting government from its citizens, instead of the other way around. It’s sad really.

Posted in: SF City Council, Sioux Falls

‘Innovation’ could fix the Metro situation

by

I think an ideal situation would be for the city to take over Metro 911 100% and have Minnehaha and Lincoln County to pay a service fee to the city, like other communities do for water and sewer from Sioux Falls.

The first reason why I think the city should take it over is because, well, we have the money. I get so tired of the city saying we don’t have money for transit or 911 but have oodles of money to subsidize play palaces. If we can drop $10 million a year for a mortgage payment on a facility that generates virtually no revenue for the city besides some scraps in sales taxes, we can afford to subsidize 911. Besides, they already get funding from cell phone usage*. Thirdly, I think 911 operators deserve a living wage and the same benefits as other city employees. The rumor is starting pay at Metro is $13 an hour. If this is true, it is unacceptable. These people may not be driving patrol cars or chasing down drug dealers, but they have a very stressful job. If we can’t start them out at least $18 an hour, how can we expect to get good people and keep them? Bring them under the city umbrella and let them have union membership.

*As for the cell phone tax to fund 911, I think the city is missing a great opportunity to fund 911 even better with the use of 5G. Instead of charging the communications companies such a low licensing/lease fee, they should make it much more substantial and put that money towards 911. These companies make MILLIONS in Sioux Falls, have them pony up for public safety. Just look at this language in the licensing agreement;

b. An annual charge of $175 per pole shall be paid each year in advance for use of City light poles for small cell equipment; and

c. Subject to approval of the City Council, the foregoing fees and charges may be decreased or increased from time to time based upon cost studies conducted to determine a reasonable approximation of the objectively reasonable and nondiscriminatory costs incurred by the City that are specifically related to and caused by the application and plan review and for deployment of small cell equipment on City’s streetlights. Such studies, and any fee adjustments will be subject to applicable laws, including, without limitation, applicable FCC rulings and regulations.

Only $175 per year! I pay almost $100 a year just for a tag on my car. The city council needs to explore a different fee structure.

County Gives $50K to Gloryhouse.

The MCC has a confusing conversation about the topic, and it seems only Karsky and Beninga support giving the money, then at the end, they add the money to the supplemental budget and approve it. I am still baffled by it. BUT, they did the right thing. This was a one-time donation for the new building. Ironically, $50K is what the Gloryhouse paid the city for the land. Isn’t it funny how your tax dollars from one entity just gets passed to another entity. The taxpayers are ALWAYS holding the bag.

Posted in: County Commission, Minnehaha County, Sioux Falls

Are Developers paying too much in Platting Fees? Absolutely NOT!

by

If anyone has been paying too much for NEW infrastructure and development, it has been the tax payers of Sioux Falls. When the 2nd Penny sales tax was raised to a full penny over a decade ago to fund infrastructure expansion, the promise was developers would put in 40-60% into that fund in platting fees. That hasn’t happened, not even close. In fact, taxpayers at one point were putting in over 10x more into that fund then the developers.

Well apparently some developers are now crying the platting fees are too much (about $20K per acre on vacant lots in undeveloped areas). Sioux Falls City Councilor Greg Neitzert talked about it in a recent post on his Facebook page. He seemed to be sympathizing with the developer because they used the tired old excuse that they pass those prices to the consumer of the new development. Well duh. The consumer is getting brand new sewer, water, and roads, why shouldn’t they pay the cost? How is charging me extra in sales taxes fair? What do I get out of it except higher taxes and water/sewer rates?

In about 50% of US cities with populations of 25K or more they charge the developer a 100% of the cost of new development infrastructure, so current users are not subsidizing new growth. This makes sense, because as I have often argued, new growth without a plan to pay for it, makes no sense. Slow growth that is properly funded is fiscally responsible to taxpayers. When developers don’t have enough workers to build their developments, that should tell us that maybe the ‘growth’ isn’t needed. Who are you building and expanding for?

I think we should eliminate platting fees all together and have developers instead pay for the entire cost of new infrastructure. If the NEW development is really truly needed, it will pay for itself. That’s just common sense.

Posted in: Developers, Development, Greg Neitzert, Planning Commission, Platting Fees, SF City Council, Sioux Falls

Sioux Falls City Council avoids the 700 pound gorilla in the room

by

That wasn’t all entirely true, Councilors Brekke and Starr brought a little reason to the sewer rate increase discussion tonight after Rick Kiley had a total meltdown when Stehly called him out about disparaging the work of staff. Which made it even more ironically funny, because all Kiley does is constantly compliment staff sometimes just for opening the toilet stall door. So when Theresa reminded him that staff helped her come up with her numbers, Ricky Lee went ballistic, twice. Memorable stuff.

Soehl suggested that she share her information in advance (you know, like the rest of the council does with Theresa and Pat . . . LOL!)

But let’s get to the serious stuff. Janet was smart to bring up the history of the 2nd penny and it’s use for infrastructure and Starr quoted Citizen Stanga wondering why so much of the 2nd penny goes towards ‘play things’.

Most people don’t realize, when you buy anything in this town, a portion goes towards paying down the bonds on the Denty from the 2nd penny. Whether you use the facility or not (in which you have to purchase a ticket) you still have to pay for it’s mortgage. You can always sit outside for free and admire the ‘interesting’ siding.

The council totally ignored the gorilla. While they argued up and down that sewer rates must rise to pay for upgrades because it is only fair to charge the user, they avoided the fact that the play palaces bonds in our town are not paid for by user fees, not one penny. Brekke and Starr came the closest to suggesting we have a long term strategic plan to look how we spend the 2nd penny (to which they got crickets). All they could focus on was that Stehly said $300.

If you want to have an honest and fair conversation about user fees and paying down bonds, as several councilors suggested, then we need to start talking about how the Denty is going to start paying it’s own bonds moving forward. I don’t think a person who can afford to pay $150 to see a Jackass in a cowboy hat would blink an eye at paying an extra $3-5 ticket fee for bonds. Heck, most wouldn’t even notice it after there $10 Coors Light and $8 dollar pretzel.

If the council thinks it is fair to raise rates to pay for sewer infrastructure then they need to also pass a city ordinance that attaches a bond repayment ticket fee to all the shows at the Denty. Otherwise they are just a bunch of hypocrites . . . wait?!

There is an alternative that would cost us less

Another portion of the conversation that was left out tonight is the simple word ‘conservation’. Actually, Public Works Director Cotter was the ONLY one who brought it up, recognizing that the conservation programs he helped implement have reduced water usage. And you can’t argue with his numbers, they are astounding and measurable (bravo to Cotter). While he gave this ‘gentle hint’ to the council, no one decided to run with it. We could actually spend a lot less by implementing even stronger and more stringent water conversation programs which would decrease our sewer usage. Many have even suggested eliminating lawn watering by planting more draught resistant natural grasses instead of non-native ones.

Besides just considering the 2nd Penny, we have alternatives to save us money on these projects, but as Brekke has suggested since she ran for the office, it takes PLANNING!

Posted in: Denny Sanford Premier Center, Event Center, Public Utilities, Public Works, SF City Council, Sioux Falls