Search Results: Staggers

Event Center Task Force Chair, Terry Baloun lays it on thick

We all knew this was coming like a freight train, the Gargoyle Leader endorses the Event Center Task Force’s flawed plan;

The plan, in its broad strokes, deserves the council’s support, subsidy and all.

They conveniently leave their endorsement as the last sentence, so let’s backtrack a bit.

First, what kind of city would Sioux Falls be without government subsidies of certain amenities?

The answer is startling.

We’d have fewer pools and no parks, for one. The Great Plains Zoo and Delbridge Museum probably would be gone. And the bike path? Forget about it. There’d be public safety, roads and sidewalks in Sioux Falls. And that’s about it.

First off, comparing an events center to the bike trail is like comparing apples to oranges. I don’t get charged an admission fee to use the bike trail and the parks. When we pay taxes we expect a service in return, we get that with the bike trail and our parks, we get that with roads, etc. Making the community as a whole pay for a facility that a majority of them will never use is unfair, and my guess will be very unpopular. That is why a BB & B tax combined with an advertising tax is the best way to pay for this facility. It is common sense really; MAKE THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE USING THE FACILITY – PAY FOR THE FACILITY. Not sure how much simpler the concept could be?

A study estimates that an events center and expanded convention center would bring $52 million into Sioux Falls annually. That’s $52 million that might find its way to another city if Sioux Falls flinches at subsidizing an events center. In that light, an estimated annual subsidy of $400,000 shouldn’t be dismissed automatically.

While I can’t deny or prove the $52 million impact, I ask this question, “Who is receiving a majority of this revenue? The common Joe?” Think about it. The Washington Pavilion estimates it generates a $13 million dollar impact every year on Sioux Falls . . . ahem. Let’s ‘pretend’ for just a moment that is true. Has your personal finances and personal wealth grown since the Pavilion and new Convention Center has been built? Probably not. Has a majority of this community grown culturally since the Pavilion been built? I know I have personally benefitted culturally from the Pavilion, but I know I am a very small minority. I don’t think subsidizing these facilities is a bad thing, I just think we need to collect that subsidy fairly – that is what the ED Board leaves out.

The City Council is expected to vote next month on a resolution supporting the events center plan and a temporary 1-cent sales tax to pay for its construction.

Something that will probably get all of the council’s rubber stamp (including maybe even Staggers). But don’t think there won’t be a lot of shit flying before this vote. It already started Monday night. During public input of the city council meeting, only two hours after the task force presented their flawed plan, a citizen urged the council not to approve the funding source for the new events center. The citizen actually sounded like he was in support of the new EC, just not the funding source. But it did not stop Quen Be De Knudson from twisting the responsibility back on the voters. She said, (paraphrasing) “This is really in the hands of the voters to approve this funding source.” Fortunately the citizen wasn’t that stupid to believe De’s bullcrap. He reminded her that the city council is the one that will initiate that process by recommending the flawed funding source to the legislature, to which she didn’t have much of an answer. Also remember, De has ranted and raved every chance she could get at council info meetings about how “she can’t wait to increase retail taxes by 1 cent so this city can build ‘all kinds of wonderful things.'” Make no mistake, this isn’t about letting the voters decide.

If you have been attending the Events Center Task Force meetings over the past couple of months, something was pretty obvious, Howard Wood wasn’t going anywhere. Why?

• There is no secured funding to build a new relocated Howard Wood (let alone a new EC)

• Significant parking can be built by the new EC location without tearing down HW and by doing that alone, you would save demolition costs which is estimated to be anywhere between $5-$15 million.

• The SF School District has enough money in the bank to upgrade the current HW.

But let’s hear why the AL ED Board thinks we should ditch the idea;

But much work remains, and it’s Munson’s and the council’s job to keep this project moving forward. They must not let this project become shelved indefinitely because of political expedience.

City leaders will need to demonstrate that Sioux Falls wants and needs this building in order to get legislative approval for a tax increase to finance it.

That’s part of the problem, #1, it is not the City Council’s job to make a decision on HW, it is the School Board’s job, who seemingly have skirted that responsibility thus far. and #2, it is also not the job of this council to find ways to tax us more, they are supposed to be protecting taxpayers from frivolous tax increases. Now that it seems the Howard Wood relocation plan has been ditched, hopefully the Task Force will come around before the legislative session starts and advise a BB & B Tax instead to fund the building. Time will tell I guess.

Tomorrow, the EC Task Force will present their findings to the city council at the informational meeting, 4 PM, Carnegie Hall (you can also watch it on cable channel 16) I guarantee there will be a slew of questions, especially from Councilor Staggers about the flawed funding source.

On a side note, I found this comment by Mike Sullivan in this article to be extremely odd, for several reasons;

“It doesn’t make much sense to say, ‘Well, we’re only going to pay $3 million for Howard Wood but we’re going to go spend $15 million to go park across the street,’ ” Sullivan said.

Not sure where Mike’s head was when the TF discussed this at a previous meeting, but I recall the TF coming to the determination that they would save millions by not tearing down HW and building flat surface parking around the current location. Mike was sitting a couple of tables away from me when that was extensively discussed, so I’m not sure whose butt he is pulling those numbers from? But even if you use his numbers, when you substract $15 million from $33 million you come up with $18 million in savings.

This project is really starting to become a Clusterf’ck. I can’t believe after talking about this for 16 months, a day before the presentation is made, they decide to ditch an important factor of the proposal. I have a feeling the TF just wants to drop the proposal in the laps of the City Council, who BTW, are not real good at making fiscally sound decisions either. Gawd help us.