BREAKING: Is the Mayor, City finance director and City Attorney trying to pull a fast one?

by

Last week after the first reading of this ordinance, some of us with the Citizens for a Responsible Sales Tax have our suspicians.

1st Reading: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SD (THE “CITY”), AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF ITS SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS IN ONE OR MORE SERIES, AUTHORIZING THE USE OF THE PROCEEDS THEREOF TO PAY THE COSTS OF IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING DIVERSION DAM, CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DAM AT THE CONFLUENCE OF SKUNK CREEK AND THE BIG SIOUX RIVER, REBUILDING THE 41ST STREET BRIDGE AND RAISING THE LEVEES TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE FLOOD RISK REDUCTION ALONG THE BIG SIOUX RIVER, SKUNK CREEK, AND THE DIVERSION CHANNEL IN THE CITY, PLEDGING A PORTION OF THE SALES AND USE TAX PROCEEDS OF THE CITY TO THE PAYMENT OF SAID SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS, FIXING THE TERMS OF SUCH SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF ONE OR MORE SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURES BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN SIOUX FALLS, AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE, EXECUTION, AND DELIVERY OF SUCH SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS.
 
Ord. 0046 (this is a detailed PDF of ordinance)
We think by borrowing MONEY against Sales Tax revenue (2%)  it will prevent our initiative to lower the sales tax to 1.9% because of a little known state law. Munson wants to ram this vote through shortly after the 1st in hopes other councilors and the media don’t pick up on it. Well guess what Dave, we are watching, and if you pull off this stunt you are going to have to answer to A LOT of people.

I’ll have more on this later.

Posted in: Uncategorized

2 Thoughts on “BREAKING: Is the Mayor, City finance director and City Attorney trying to pull a fast one?”

  1. Ghost of Dude on December 22, 2008 at 8:07 am said:

    I think it has more to do with the revised flood plain affecting property values in the area. Not to mention that it would be better and cheaper to prevent a flood than to clean it up.

  2. l3wis on December 22, 2008 at 8:22 am said:

    There is a lot more shananigans going on then you think. The money was already budgeted to come out of the CIP, but the mayor decided we needed to BORROW the money instead, therefore triggering the state law. I think the project does need to be done, but I also think if The Corp of Engineers and the Feds are promising us money, we should get it first instead of borrowing it and hoping we get paid back (think Lewis and Clark water project.) This isn’t about that anyway, it’s about trying to block our initiative. Why does he want to pass this so soon after Jan 1st? ironically after the tax goes up to 2%? Why can’t we wait to borrow this money when dirt is ready to move? Or why are we borrowing it at all if it is already in the budget?

    I’ll have more details in the coming days.

Post Navigation