Editor of the AL shows how little he knows about city government

by

I wear a helmet to protect my brain from FACTS.

The interview Lalley conducted with Councilman Staggers today was laughable at best. I suggest that Lalley schools himself on all things city government before he conducts any more interviews with city officials.

Here’s a few highlights from the ‘Morning Conversation’

– Staggers defends public input in the regular council meetings after Lalley suggests we have ‘special meetings’ for big topics. Staggers points out why this is a bad idea because public input needs to take place at the time of the vote. And if that takes 3 hours, so be it. I also asked Staggers in the comments section, if he thinks the city council violated city ordinance by limiting public input time. He walked a pretty fine line when he answered the question, he didn’t go as far to say that they did, but he did defend public testimony and said that it should not be limited in the future. Lalley seemed to think different topics needed different amounts of time, then he goes into some weird rant about limiting public input because it had to do with Theresa Stehly. WTH does that have to do with anything?

– While we are on snowgates, Staggers was talking about city debt and bonding for special interests after a commenter asked about bonding. Staggers was quick to point out how the city needs to spend more money on capital projects, like snowgates, instead of special interest and recreational projects, because snowgates would benefit most residents in Sioux Falls. Of course, Lalley couldn’t resist to refute Staggers with some really bad math. First he said that it wouldn’t help most residents because only 5% of the total population of SF owns homes with driveways in Sioux Falls. Staggers kind of laughed at such a notion, and Lalley says, “I will email it to you!” Staggers was quick to point out that you don’t need to be a homeowner to benefit from snowgates, because it would clean out driveways of businesses and apartment buildings as well as clear intersections. But Lalley just couldn’t drop it and said it wasn’t about snow removal it was about SHOVELING.

– And just when Lalley couldn’t look any more ignorant, he blames the $400 million dollar debt MOSTLY on the Events Center. Not to defend that pointless project, but that is only about 25% of our debt, Lewis & Clark also racked up $70 million (for a pipeline we did not need) So where did the other $100-200 million come from? As Staggers points out, all of these special interest projects. Lalley then mutters something about sewer pipes. Hey Pat, if you were paying attention at all when the city raised our water rates you will find that those repairs come from rates and enterprise funds now.

I have a suggestion for Lalley if he is going to do a daily media program. Stick to asking questions and leave the editorializing to your boss. You just look stupid when you say stupid things.

Posted in: Media, SF City Council, Sioux Falls, Staggers

Let’s just overcharge you on property taxes so we don’t create more work for ourselves

by

“You mean we will have to talk about the budget next year to? This job sucks!” (Image: KELO-TV screenshot);

And $4 million sets the limit of how much the county can collect, but that does not mean the Commission will need that much.  Commissioner Cindy Heiberger thought it was better to aim high.

“This is a beginning.  If we opt-out for $1 million this year, are we going to be back in the same room next year doing the exact same thing?” Heiberger said.  “I just feel like if we opt-out for a lower amount, we’re going to turn around and be back here in a few years saying we’re just squeaking by.”

Cindy, I have news for you, you are an elected official – it is your job 1) to look out for the best interest of the taxpayers and 2) to work for us. You act like revisiting the budget next year would just be ‘too pesky’ for you. Please tell us why you wanted to be a public servant?

We experienced the same crap with the city and water rates, let’s just overcharge, then if we realize it is too much, we can simmer it down a bit.

Huh!?

Oh, and then there is this nice little tidbit;

During the 1.5 hour discussion, they opened up the meeting for public comment from taxpayers.  However no one voiced any concerns about paying higher property taxes.

Gee, McFly, I wonder why? Because most of those taxpayers are working during the time of your meeting.


 

Posted in: County Commission, Minnehaha County

Argue Endorser; We’ve talked about the EC long enough – just go vote (yes, please)

by

The state can’t afford to help with a new events center, they have Canadian oil companies to help first.

Of course the AL cannot resist to spread a little beautiful sunshine before telling us to go vote;

The plan calls for a $115 million center to be built adjacent to the Convention Center. It would seat 12,000 people, and no new or raised taxes would be used to pay for it.

Until the next council and mayor take over, there is nothing stopping them from raising taxes. There is also no mention of the current council shifting enterprise funds out of the 2nd penny to make infrastructure upgrades be rate supported only (why do you think water rates have gone up almost 200%?). Or that the facility will cost almost $200 million when it is all said and done.

More than 1,500 jobs would be created, and 85 percent of local contractors would be used for the project.

A commenter on the AL site had this to say about that half-truth;

According to both the Mayor’s EC update to the Council (see siouxfalls.org September 12th Informational meeting) and the EC public presentation that they gave at the public libraries this week:

1,100 jobs are TEMPORARY construction jobs
184 jobs are PERMANENT jobs (their comment: these will be mostly in the hospitality industry)

This is a total of 1,284 jobs, of which 1,100 are TEMPORARY (an important omission of the facts, esp. when job creation is such an important and timely topic).

AND, I think that this is a good example of why the pros and cons of this project need to continue to be discussed!

(This is a sentence taken directly from this editorial: “It’s time to stop arguing about the pros and cons of an events center and put your ballot where your mouth is.”

And I’m still wondering whose butt they pulled this factoid from;

The estimated economic benefit is $36 million a year.

I have mentioned to councilor Jamison in the past that having Pat Costello sitting on the Governor’s staff as the main dude when it comes to economic development that you would think we would get something from the state? Anything would help. This commenter says it best;

Lastly, the big talking points about why we should build this thing is tax revenue from visitors. Well, doesn’t the state get 2/3rds of all sales taxes collected in this state? I realize they are broke thanks to a decade of mismanagement, but the state stands to gain quite nicely from a new facility, yet they are unwilling to provide ANY type of support, either monetarily or via fiscal policy.

Well they are not broke. They have almost a $800 million sitting in an investment fund, untouched. They also have all kinds of money to throw at foreign oil companies for tax breaks. Yeah, you would think the state would give something? Right?

Posted in: Event Center, Sioux Falls

Happy 4th, but the real fireworks will be tomorrow night at Carnegie Hall

by

I started looking through tomorrow’s meeting agendas for the SF City Council and found a mixed bag of interesting items.

RAIL RELOCATION

Considering Mike got his Arena site picked for the Events Center. I guess now he can move forward on the rail relocation 🙂

FISCAL COMMITTEE MEETING

During this meeting they will be discussing council approval and notification before the mayor signs contracts. It’s a complicated read, if you have the time to indulge.

This of course is something the mayor has been fighting, but I think is a good thing, and well overdue. This should have been done during the Munson administration so we wouldn’t of had a 100% cost overrun on Phillips to the Falls. They will also be discussing freezing water rates for the old and the poor, but screw the rest of us I guess.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

Pawn Shop ordinance (Item #25) This will be an interesting discussion, because as I understand it, it was deferred to allow the 2nd hand goods people to have a say in how it was written. Not sure if they were allowed to or not. This I am sure will come out tomorrow. The original version that was presented was considered unconstitutional to many of the pawn brokers and their attorney.

Due Process and hearing examiners (Item #30 – 1st reading) These changes came about after the city has faced many lawsuits, including Daily vs. City of SF and the red light camera suit. What are the changes? Well what I can see with my NON-Attorney eyes are as follows;

• If you believe you have not violated city ordinance, you can appeal the decision (ironically there is a $50 processing fee, that will be refunded, of course, if you are found not guilty)

• Once you file an appeal the city will stop fining you, nagging you, bugging you and harassing you until a final decision is made.

• The city bears burden of proof

• subpoenas will be allowed

• The hearings will be recorded

I’m not sure what to think, but I still have a problem with a hearing examiner, hired by the city deciding whether or not you have violated city code.

Districting Committee (Item #35) I found the new members interesting

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think in the past there has been two Republicans, two Democrats and one Independent. I don’t see that this time, and I am wondering what the RULES are on that topic. Secondly, I found the appointment of Glenski, Knobe and Traub also interesting. Glenski complained about the districting last time around, so that is no surprise she is on board this time. Traub is new to this city government thingy, and is getting involved, which is a good thing. He of course was the voice of Build it Downtown. Knobe has batted around the idea of running for Vernon’s seat next spring (at large city council). Wouldn’t this be a conflict of interest if he intends to run?

Posted in: SF City Council, Sioux Falls

Pesky campaign promises

by

I found this statement about Events Center funding ‘interesting’

Turbak said Monday the city soon will finish paying off other bonds, which would free up revenue to pay off the bonds for an events center. That means other programs and projects won’t be sacrificed for the events center.

You mean like transferring the Lewis & Clark bond over to water rates and out of 2nd penny CIP revenue? Oh and those pesky campaign promises. Notice during the campaign he promised

• Not to add on to Convention Center

• Pay for it with Entertainment taxes, user fees, private donors and parking and rental fees. No mention of bonding (click on image to expand).

Posted in: Event Center, Sioux Falls