UPDATE: KSFY edits Councilor Stehly’s ‘OPINION’ after Mayor TenHaken sends out chastising email to the media and Theresa

by

UPDATE: Just when you thought this couldn’t get any better, KSFY decided to put Stehly’s comments back in the story with this disclaimer;

Mayor Paul TenHaken has called into question Stehly’s comment about sewer bills rising to $300 a month. He calls it an absurd assertion. KSFY News initially removed the comment after the story aired over concerns that it was confusing, but we have since put the comment back in. Stehly says she stands by her comment.

Prairie Values TV Journalism at it’s best. Maybe KSFY should just stick to doing stories about charity dog races, halloween decorations and food trucks and let the newspaper and blogs cover the ‘real’ news.

It is one thing to edit a story based on having a name misspelled, or numbers and places that or incorrect. That is responsible journalism. But to edit an ‘Opinion’ of an elected official after another elected official in same government entity sends out an email, well, is horrible journalism. I often chuckle at Trump when he says ‘Fake News’ but in this case, one has to wonder.

The other night on KSFY they did a story on the wastewater treatment plant, Councilor Stehly said she has a ‘concern’ that water bills could exceed $300 dollars a month. While I kind of cringed when she said that, it is what it is, an OPINION. (she really isn’t that far off the mark, while our bills will increase $2 a month, for a small business owner they could easily see bills increasing to $300. In fact, over the past decade our water/sewer bills have increased 93%).

Well this ‘Opinion’ did not sit well with Selfie Paul, he sent out this email to city staff and the media (I was conveniently NOT included);

Councilor Stehly:

Thank you for the opportunity this week to once again provide you with information on the Water Reclamation System. Upcoming investments in the collection and treatment systems is a foundational investment crucial to both current and future residents who expect a reliable wastewater collection and treatment system.

The administration has invested hundreds of hours on this project due to the importance of this infrastructure for our city as well as the large price tag attached to it. We have also spent time briefing the City Council, media and public on the importance of this project.

Unfortunately, this week you broke a sacred trust elected leaders have with their constituents. As elected officials we have an obligation to present factual information to the public. That is what I have done in my role as mayor and that is what I expect of city employees. Yesterday, on KSFY and on Tuesday at City Council Informational you stated wastewater customers will experience a $300 per month rate increase as a result of this project. Spreading such misinformation when factual projections have been presented to you is a disservice to your constituents and I’m disappointed you knowingly spread this false information.

Talk about misinformation! It was simply an opinion of ONE city councilor. In the original KSFY story (the edited version is here) Stehly’s ‘Opinion’ was in there, after this email was sent it was edited out of the video (almost) and the text.

Ironically though they didn’t edit the close captioning, it still remains there;

I’m NOT blaming the reporter for this, I’m sure the higher ups made this decision to edit the story, which makes it even more egregious. There’s a fine line between FACTS and OPINIONS, maybe someone should explain this to the producers of KSFY or more importantly the Mayor.

Posted in: Mayor TenHaken, Media, Paul Ten Haken, Public Utilities, Public Works, SF City Council, Sioux Falls, Theresa Stehly

UPDATE III: Should new Sewer Plant bonds be paid for through user fees?

by

Before I give you my answer to that question, first, I want to say I don’t think it is fiscally feasible. The bond payments combined with current debt service will easily exceed $25 million a year. A question councilor Stehly has been asking but not getting an answer on.

Don’t you think it is kind of bizarre we planned out $260 million in water reclamation upgrades over 7 years, a rate increase model and a 1st reading on Tuesday, yet NO ONE has an estimate of what those bond payments will be.

Yeah . . . right . . .

UPDATE II: Here are the projections;

UPDATE III: Here is the full report and answers to Stehly’s questions from Tuesday’s informational: Council Stehly Response – 11-16-18

Reminds of the SFSD and how they ran from the $300 million dollar bond repayment number.

So what is the justification of paying the bonds down through user fees besides the enterprise fund model that former mayor Bucktooth and Bowlcut concocted with Turdbak? They feel that bonds for infrastructure should be paid for through user fees. (I partially agree, but we will get to that in a moment).

Let’s be clear, like the Pavilion, the Denty has never made one dollar’s worth of payments towards the bonds and debt service which is around $9 million a year for the facility. That payment comes directly out of a fund we pay into when we purchase anything in Sioux Falls, groceries, clothing, etc. The 2nd penny is supposed to be for things like infrastructure (sewer plants) and roads, but we use it now to pay down the bonds on entertainment facilities. Does the Denty make money? Well kind of. They have tons of sponsorships* which offset the operational costs and any money left over above and beyond doesn’t even go back to the city. It goes into a revolving fund that the city maintains financially but that SMG uses to promote the EC. While it doesn’t cost us anything to operate the facility, we get ZERO from it to pay down the bonds. It’s like paying a mortgage on a house you can’t live in and the renters keep their rent payment, but do invite you over for an occasional BBQ – BYOB of course.

Something that was suggested long ago was a ticket fee attached to each ticket that would go directly to the bond payment. It was nixed by SMG because they said promoters don’t like it. But if it is written into city ordinance promoters and artists would have to obey. The 7th penny, which is the entertainment tax was used to pay down the Pavilion bonds, it was supposed to sunshine after that but never did and now is used for the maintenance of the Pavilion and EC and CC.

It is hypocritical to say we need to raise sewer rates to pay these bonds since the EC, the Pavilion, The Midco Aquatic Center and many other play palaces in SF have never paid down their bonds through user fees.

The user fees for sewer should go towards operating and maintaining current sewer lines. We should pay the bond for new sewer infrastructure out of the fund that was created for that, the 2nd penny.

When I have suggested this, many have said, “Then where will the debt service come from for the entertainment facilities?” My response is the same as Public Works Director Cotter’s, FROM USER FEES!

It’s time we change city ordinance so that the play palaces can start paying their own way. Clean water is essential to the health and well being of a growing city, seeing Garth Brooks 20 times in a row isn’t. We need to look at our fiscal responsibilities more closely.

*UPDATE: I wonder how the sponsorship negotiations are going with most of the sponsors at the Denty? Most of those agreements expire in 2019 (except the main naming rights). Makes you wonder if SMG’s latest termination has anything to do with this?

Posted in: Public Utilities, Public Works, Sioux Falls

Sioux Falls School District Super Maher admits (capital) budget could be amended

by

When Lalley was asking Brian today about moving the school bond issue to the General Election to save taxpayers money on a stand alone special election, Brian went with the old standby argument that their budget must be turned into the state by September 30. Than Lalley asks, “But you could amend it after September?” and Brian says, “Yes.” Lalley also talks about how stand alone elections are expensive, he guesses $100K. Actually, if you do an entire city election, using ALL the precincts, it would be around $60-$80k. If they were to do it with the general, it probably wouldn’t barely cost them $20K.

When Lalley asked Maher about what kind of election would it be, whether it would be super precincts or NOT, Brian dodged the question and said that was up to the school board.

Make no mistake, they want a super precinct stand alone election to control the electorate, even though I still don’t understand how that will work. I still think it has a better chance of passage during the general.

Maher also said that the $190 million bond will be for 25 years. But when asked what the final cost of the bond would be, he said that he “Didn’t have that number.”

WOW! You are trying to sell the community on this bond and you don’t have the payoff amount? Poppycock! You know exactly what it is, and that is why you won’t give the public or the media that number.

Brian did say they were hoping for a 4% rate. If that was the case, that would put interest and principal at around $95 million, which would put the bond at about $285 Million payoff.

Maher also kept trying to sell us on the $2 a month tax increase without talking about the taxes compounding each year.

WHY CAN’T LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WORK TOGETHER?

I asked Commissioner Barth this today when he told me about the possible County opt-out. I said, “Why is it that the county has to build a jail the same time the school district has to build schools at the same time the city wants to upgrade the water treatment plant? Can’t we spread this out over 4-5 years?”

SPEAKING OF THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT

I guess city officials have been throwing the 5,000 a year growth number out a lot when talking about the the new treatment plant. What they are NOT doing is saying where that number came from (the former mayor’s butt) and it’s breakdown. In other words, how many NEW workers are we seeing in Sioux Falls each year compared to new births and retirees? Also, I would like to know what percentage of our treatment plant is used for outlying towns that are paying us to treat their water? Why not double their rates instead? This would encourage them to either help pay for our expansion, or force them to build their own, which would increase our ability to treat more SF sewage.

Posted in: Brian Maher, SF School District, Sioux Falls

Sioux Falls City Council Agenda, July 3, 2018

by

City Council Informational Meeting – 4 PM

Presentation from the Planning Department about Accessory Dwellings in Residential areas (I think there was changes in the law).

May Monthly Financial Report

*There is now public input at ALL city council meetings. The public input will be at the end of the meeting.

City Council Fiscal Meeting – 4:30 (after informational meeting)

2017 Sales & Use Tax Available Fund Balance Presentation

Revenue Sources and Budget Projections Presentation

I’m assuming that these presentations will be made to prepare the city council for the upcoming budget hearings. The ‘story’ going around is that the city directors are saying we don’t have much money coming in. Which I find ironic considering they probably want to jack up our water/sewer rates while borrowing $30 million for the safety training center. I know that several city councilors have said that they are curious why we didn’t apply for state and federal grants to help pay for the training center. There are several programs available. They are also curious why the Public Assurance Alliance didn’t assist in trying to find these grants?

Also important to note, there is another rumor circulating that city hall has interviewed three(?) candidates for Finance Director, and they are all local people.

*There is now public input at ALL city council meetings. The public input will be at the end of the meeting.

City Council Regular Meeting – 7 PM

I guess we will start the meeting off by singing ‘God Bless America’ I’m assuming to celebrate Independence Day. I think it would be more appropriate to recite the Declaration of Independence, but what do I know?

Item #45, 2nd Reading, Public Input. I expect at least one Amendment to allow visuals. Not sure if any other amendments will happen. Public Input will remain at beginning, but limit to 30 minutes (10 speakers, 3 minutes each) and now public input will be allowed on ALL agenda items, which now includes 1st Readings.

Item #50, Transfer of Appropriations, I found it curious that we are funding $145K for Aquatic Facilities Development, Professional Services. Not sure if this is for consultant work or actual brick and mortar. I know when the Midco Aquatic Center was being planned the Parks Department talked about building another indoor pool. I think once that facility starts at least breaking even and is used to it’s capacity, than we can talk more indoor pools. I also see the Sanford Sports Complex building their own indoor pool facility within the next 5 years to compliment what is already there. There has also been talk about an indoor Water Park in that area, which wouldn’t surprise me.

Planning Commission Meeting – 6 PM, July 5 (due to Wednesday holiday, this meeting is one day later than normal.)

Posted in: SF City Council, Sioux Falls

Maybe our insurance provider, the Public Assurance Alliance, should be paying for the Falls Park Safety report

by

Before Paul could give his 5 year plan to raise our water and sewer rates, the city council discussed the Falls Park Safety Plan in open discussion. While I agree with TenHaken that we shouldn’t be hiring consultants to re-confirm what we already know (and paying City FTE professionals to tell us the same thing the consultants are) when it comes to a Falls Park Safety Report, why would the city be hiring and paying the consultant directly anyway?

It seems the council may be split on whether we need the report. Councilors Neitzert and Erickson think it is an unneeded expense while councilors Starr, Stehly and others think we need it.

Neitzert argued that we have gotten yearly ‘oral’ reports from our insurance provider, the Public Assurance Alliance. But if no one writes down what they say, what good is an ‘oral’ report? It’s like an episode of Judge Judy and he said-she said.

But to my bigger point, why on earth would we have to pay for an official outside report and review? We pay the PAA millions in premiums each year to insure our city, shouldn’t they be paying for the report and hiring the consultant? I think any good insurance provider would do that for their LARGEST and most LUCRATIVE client.

When your car or home gets damaged, your insurance provider doesn’t send you an extra bill to assess the damage, it’s figured into your premiums.

Someone needs to call up the new Chief of PAA, Mr. Fiddle-Faddle himself and tell him to get off his duff and provide The City of Sioux Falls an independent review of Falls Park at NO CHARGE. It’s the least he could do after attaining his golden parachute.

 

Posted in: SF City Council, Sioux Falls