How much is Sioux Falls paying in consulting fees?

by

Good question.

Councilor Staggers has asked the question several times and City Hall refuses to give him an answer. He brings it up again on Inside Town Hall last week. I guess it didn’t sit well with the beauracratic department heads. How dare they have to reveal how they are (wastefully) spending our money!

He also talks about other open government issues;

Inside Town Hall – January 5, 2009

Openness in Government – Council member Kermit Staggers discusses his views on how to keep city government open to all citizens.

Posted in: 1st Amendment, Sioux Falls, Staggers

Another uninformed decision by the SF City Council

by

This could be us, if we don’t act now. “Heh, Heh, the fishin’ pretty good in Sioux Falls, huh daddy?”

Though it is disappointing that our intitiative bit the dust, I am more disappointed in the seven councilors who voted for the $38 million dollar bond to pay for the levees. Do I think the project needs to be done? Definately. But it all comes down to timing and Federal money, and FACTS, not gut feelings.

Some things the councilors did not take into consideration;

– They could still negotiate with FEMA. FEMA is the federal agency that created this flood plain, it should be the Federal government’s responsibility to fix and pay for the problem and last I checked people in Sioux Falls pay Federal income taxes, the Feds owe us.

– Though it is true we have to foot the bill for the 41st Street bridge ($12 Million) we could have pulled that money from the CIP (where it originally was) but instead it was thrown into the loan so the city could spend the $12 million in the CIP on WANTS. Very, very, fiscally irresponsible considering our interest on the loan will be over $8 million to pay back.

– This city hasn’t had a major flood since the 1950’s and there hasn’t been ANY studies done for at least 20 to 30 years about where we stand for floods. We also have been in a drought for the last 4 years, at least, in SD. (ironically why the Lewis and Clark pipeline is so vital) There have only been two incidents in recent years that had nothing to do with the levees or the floodplain. In 1996 the spillway had to built up because it couldn’t handle the Spring thaw and in 2005 we got two torrential rains that backed up into people’s basements do to inadequate sewer and street drainage. The levees held then too. I have said to this day, that happened because for the past 20 years the city has been putting bandades on infrastructure while going gungho on new development and growth, and they continue this practice to this day. You can thank Steve Metli, former city planner for that.

– Individual property owners are responsible for their own flood insurance, not the city. If they don’t want to pay for the insurance for the next couple of years, don’t buy it or move. Ironically not one single property owner of the 1,900 properties in the proposed floodplain came last night to plead with the council to vote for this loan. NOT A SINGLE ONE! Yet Munson told us there was many concerned citizens, but I guess not concerned enough to show up to this important decision that would affect their property. He also said he “Feels for people” on fixed incomes that may have to buy this insurance. Well, if you are so concerned about fixed income people, stop raising our taxes on food to pay for streets that we don’t need. That’s a start.

– And lastly, my biggest argument why this loan was a bad idea was because once we pay for this up front, what obligation does the Federal government have to pay us back? None. The argument is we would save money on bonds and bids if we do the project now. Which is a dumb argument, considering if the FEDs pay for it, instead of us, who cares what it cost, we won’t have to pay it back. The objective of Obama’s stimulous package is to create 5 million jobs. What incentive does the Obama administration have to create jobs for infrastructure projects in a city that has a low unemployment rate and the credit rating to pay for these projects on their own?

The solution?

Even though Staggers voted for the project he tried to get an amendment to push the bridge back into the CIP (where it belongs) so we could reduce our loan. Nobody seconded the motion.

I think we should pay for the bridge out of our CIP and make cuts to wants. I think we should get on the horn to Ironic Johnny, Timmy come lately and Stephanie Herseth-Sandals Vaction and get them in on the stimulous package to get us Federal aid for the levees.

Of course now it is too late. Councilors voted with their emotions last night (and made me the butt of several jokes about being opposed to it). Councilor Litz even talked about global warming and Katrina (can’t remember the last time we were hit by a hurricane).

In an Argus Leader interview, Councilor Costello, the loan dissenter had this to say;

“You have to measure the risk with the cost,” he said. “We know we have flood protection.”

Of course the AL editorial board gave the decision a big old thumbs up;

And it would be sad if the bond vote-repeal effort connection somehow becomes a campaign issue in the 2010 mayoral race.

Oh, it will be an issue!

Yes, the council has a duty to gather all pertinent information that might influence its decisions, and that includes the effect of the bond vote on the repeal effort.

But given that due process has been upheld, it was appropriate – indeed necessary – for the council to move forward.

Posted in: Butt, Citizens for Reponsible Sales Tax, Costello, De Knudson, economy, Ehrisman, FEMA, Floodplain, Munson, Taxes

SF City Council Meeting – Tonight – 7 PM

by

If you support our initiative to lower sales taxes I encourage you attend or watch the council meeting tonight at 7 PM. You can either watch it LIVE on cable channel 16 or online LIVE at http://siouxfalls.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2.

Our group will be confronting the council about the legality of borrowing money against a higher tax rate, in essence possibly ending our petition drive and tying the hands of future councils and mayors to reduce our taxes.

The Argus Leader wrote an article today on the matter;

A group of residents trying to lower the sales tax rate in Sioux Falls fears that tonight’s City Council vote to authorize $38 million in new bonds could undercut their efforts.

The group, Citizens for a Responsible Sales Tax, is collecting signatures to put the sales tax question to a citywide vote. If the group collects enough signatures, voters would have the choice of keeping the city’s share of sales tax at 2 percent or dropping it to 1.9 percent.

But the decision to issue bonds could put a stop to that effort because the South Dakota Constitution says that any revenue source pledged to pay off bonds or other debts is “irrepealable” until the debt is paid off.

Even if this ordinance would not undercut our effort I find it fiscally irresponsible to borrow money that we have to pay interest on for 20 years if there is a good possibility we will be getting the money interest free from Washington to do the project with the only disadvantage being we may have to wait an extra 12 months to move dirt. Big Whoop.

“It is kind of ironic that this is the way it’s going – that someone in Minneapolis is telling us about South Dakota law,” Staggers said.

Amundson said Sunday that bond work is highly specialized, one reason he wants Aby to render an opinion. Amundson also thinks the people working for the initiated measure should get their own opinion from their own lawyer.

“I think the person who it comes from is the attorney for the people who file the initiative,” he said.

Once again, another Munson political appointee forgets who pays his wages and who he works for. The people. We own the city, not the mayor. It seems he thinks his job is defending Munson from the very people who pay his salary and elected him. I think it may be time for him to reread his job description.

It’s unclear what, if any, effect today’s bond vote will have on efforts to lower the sales tax. Portions of the tax already are pledged to pay off other bonds. But in two previous citywide elections, the administration of Mayor Dave Munson has come out on the losing end – once to raise the sales tax to pay for a recreation center and once to borrow $12 million to build an indoor swimming pool.

And that is what is making us suspicious. If Munson can’t beat us at the polls, he’ll try to beat us with the horribly written state laws we have. Go figure. I have to be honest with you. If this does make the ballot I have no idea which way the vote will go. There will be a lot of support and good arguments on both sides. This isn’t about that, it’s about letting the citizens decide and educating the community on the spending spree Mr. Munson has been on.

Please join us tonight. I’ll be the one wearing the cowboy hat and boots.

Posted in: Citizens for Reponsible Sales Tax, SF City Council, Sioux Falls, Taxes

Citizens speak out about hospital expansion, but is City Hall listening

by

I watched the Sioux Falls city council meeting in which several residents from the Sanford Rezoning neighborhood spoke out against the rezoning, mainly because they were not sure if all the residents were properly notified. Councilor Staggers suggested that Sanford should notify every single resident and have written proof they understand and approve of the rezoning before passage. Sounded pretty reasonable to me. But in typical beauracratic fashion, city planner Mike Cooper thought it would be easy to move forward as planned then if the residents wanted to change back he would help them out for FREE. Once again inefficiency won. What surprised me the most was that it passed at all. Two other councilors seemed to agree with Staggers during the discussion (Brown and Anderson) and Munson reminded them that it would take 5 votes to pass. Litz could not vote because he lived within 300 feet of the zoning area and Knudson was absent. Well guess what, Staggers was the only one to vote it down, so it passed. What makes this more disappointing was the citizens WERE NOT represented that night, the hospital was and if voted down it would have been a mere inconvenience for Sanford and would not have affected operations whatsoever. But the council decided to inconveniece 27 residents instead of the hospital, essentially turning their backs on the people who elect them. It was a pretty pathetic scene.

Here’s some commentary from the meeting;

Posted in: Sandford Hospital, SF City Council ⋅ Tagged: