Gee, could have guessed this;

Sen. Susan Collins, the Maine GOP dealmaker who’s been in the limelight this week for helping to pass a watered down stimulus, has been talking a good game about the need to avoid wasting taxpayer money. But it looks like Collins also worked today to strip from the final bill a measure that’s crucial to exposing that waste.

Here’s what happened:

The House stimulus bill contained a provision designed to protect federal whistleblowers. Currently, those protections are shockingly weak. According to the Project On Government Oversight, whistleblowers who are fired or demoted can file a complaint with a government board — but over the last eight years, that board has ruled in favor of whistleblowers only twice in 55 cases.

More to the point, the protections were designed to encourage federal workers to point out cases where taxpayer money is subject to waste, fraud, or abuse — a legitimate concern when Congress spends $800 billion, and one that centrists and Republicans have been particularly exercised about.

Yesterday, 20 members of the House, from both parties, yesterday sent a letter to House negotiators urging them to ensure that the protections remained.

But, according to a person following the bill closely, Collins used today’s conference committee to drastically water down the measure, citing national security concerns as the reason for her opposition. In the end, the protections were so weakened that House negotiators balked, and the result was that the entire amendment was removed.

According to the person following the bill, Collins was the “central roadblock” to passing the protections.

But wait, here’s the good part!

So when, in the coming months, conservatives start jumping up and down over the fact that money from the stimulus bill is being wasted, as they surely will, it’s worth remembering that a key measure designed to help expose that waste was removed from taken out of the bill — and by a senator said to be a champion of fiscal discipline.

I compared apples to apples and all I can say is, damn right it is!

I first want to say that Sioux Falls has an amazing park system. But is it all useful? We continue to build new parks when we are not using the current parks we have to capacity. Take Yankton Trail for instance. Rumor has it the city only allows the park for competition, not to be used as a practice facility. Why is that? I have even heard stories of police intimidation if you are using certain parks just for recreation instead of competition. What Up?!

This summer I rode my bike to work almost every day on the bike trail. I found the trail to be well maintained and frequently used, I also found our parks are over manicured, watered, mowed, and maintained (what’s the point of mowing ½” of grass!?).

Why does the parks department and budget continue to grow at such a rapid rate, and what is the solution to slow it down a bit to an acceptable inflationary level? I suggest we stop building new parks for at least two years and do an extensive study on how much our parks are used by monitoring their usages throughout the week and seasons. If certain parks have little usage – we sell off the land. I also suggest we build smaller parks that are easier and less expensive to maintain. I also think we should reduce the size of some of our larger parks. One thing I observed this summer is that smaller parks are more populated. Not sure why? Maybe people feel safer?

I decided to look at another city similar to ours in climate, size and growth. Billings, Montana is two-thirds the size in population to Sioux Falls.

Billings spends $5,714 a year per developed acre of parkland.

Sioux Falls spends $11,546 a year per developed acre of parkland.

Can you imagine if it cost you that much to maintain your lawn every year! Even if you feritlized, watered and paid a lawn service for an acre of land you are still looking at about $2,200

You must also remember, the $33 Million is the 2009 operating budget ONLY! This does not include building and developing new park land, that is in a separate budget called the CIP.

Sioux Falls maintains 4.8 times more parkland than Billings and even if you adjust for the population difference Sioux Falls still maintains 3.22 times more parkland than Billings. Sioux Falls budget is 9.78 times larger than Billings and 6.52 times larger when you adjust for population – Holy Crap! This is pretty amazing considering the similarities between Sioux Falls and Billings. If you go to Billings Parks and Recreation page you will see that they also offer as many activities as Sioux Falls. In Sioux Falls defense we charge visitors a tax to buy stuff here to help fund our parks. In Billings they are not so lucky, they only have a state income tax to work with. Not only does Billings maintain developed acres on such a small budget they also maintain over 2,000 acres of undeveloped parks but they also irrigate their parks like we do, from the river. When I spoke to one of the park’s directors about his operating budget, he said they were underfunded (well duh) but when I told him our budget, he was dumbfounded, as was I when I heard his budget.

What is the problem? My guess is Sioux Falls is paying too much for outside services and over-maintaining. It’s not like Billings is a couple bucks short of us on funding, they are millions and millions of dollars shorter than us. It tells me that Sioux Falls Parks and Recreation is in a constant state of overspending. We can have all the same things we have now, we just need to start shopping at the dollar store.

How has the Parks budget grown to such a massive level without some oversight? That’s just it, there is no oversight or accountability. The Parks board meetings are not televised or broadcast on the city website. The other problem is that the Parks board is all volunteer. I think they need to be elected officials. With a $33 million dollar operating budget a year, they operate almost as a separate entity from the city. In fact, up until a few years ago, the Parks and Rec department made their own decisions on public art, not consulting the Mayor, Council or Visual Arts Commission before placing public art. Kinda takes the word ‘Public’ out of ‘Public Art’.

Once we ask for accountability from our Parks and Rec department not only will you see incredible savings to taxpayers, you will see more CITIZEN friendly parks.

When we got to San Francisco, this was one of the first things I got to see. The friend we stayed with lived about six blocks from the beach. Since the time we were out there was considered there ‘summer’ it was actually pretty nice (but very cold water). I would usually walk down there every morning and watch the surfers.

These are ‘Snowy Plovers’ they are endangered birds, so this stretch of the beach is a habitat for them and you are not allowed to bother them (mainly with your pets). They are pretty funny because they have skinny little legs and kinda look like quails with pointy long beaks that they use to dig in the sand. When the waves come in fast instead of flying away they run really fast in a group. They reminded me of chickens.

 

Yes they surf in this freezing water. I’m sure the suit helps, but it can’t be very nice on the head and feet. Yow!

The Sales Tax decrease WILL NOT

          WILL NOT Affect the 2009 Budget (It would not take effect until January 1, 2010. In the spring of 2010 the city will have 3-4 new councilors and a new mayor that most likely will want to go over the budget with a fine tooth comb and make adjustments. There couldn’t be a better time to implement this decrease.

          WILL NOT Affect the operations budget (Police, Fire, government services, etc.)

          WILL NOT Take money away from Lewis & Clark (this is actually being paid for thru your water bill)

         WILL NOT  Take money away from new road construction (Developer fees can pay to build new roads)

          WILL NOT Take money from road maintenance and infrastructure projects

          WILL NOT Hurt growth and development

The Sales Tax decrease WILL

          WILL Reduce the tax on food and utilities

          WILL Put approximately $5 Million back into taxpayers hands to spend on what they want (this will actually help the local economy because the money will be spent on good and services and promote local business which actually helps growth).

          WILL Force the city to make cuts from the Capital Improvements Budget (which currently includes giveaways to downtown businesses, unneeded upgrades to entertainment facilities and other WANTS)

          WILL Be responsible to taxpayers

 

We will also have petitions available to anyone that wants to help.

 

Â