Remember when local economist Mark Weber warned Sioux Falls about the economy and preparing for the worse? Well guess what, they were not listening, once again;
Sales tax collections in Sioux Falls through July are down 0.4 percent from last year, causing some city councilors to worry that a projected sales tax growth of 4 percent in 2010 is too optimistic.
Eugene Rowenhorst, the city finance director, told the City Council during a budget hearing Monday that sales tax revenues did not grow at all in the first seven months of the year. The council originally had budgeted for a 6.5 percent increase this year, but that later was modified to a projected 2 percent increase.
It’s not like you couldn’t see this coming for months and months. It was pretty obvious that SF was not immune to the recession, but it doesn’t stop Eugene from spinning it even more;
But the fact that the tax revenue is down this far into the year has some councilors worried about next year. During the budget meeting, council member Kermit Staggers questioned why the 2010 proposed budget projects a 4 percent increase in sales tax.
Rowenhorst’s answer was that the economy is expected to improve by next year, and the 4 percent increase is a middle ground between the 2 percent growth that eventually was projected for 2009 and the historic 6 percent to 7 percent increase in sales tax receipts.
“We’re coming out of the recession and getting back to a more normal growth phase,” Rowenhorst said.
Sorry, Eugene, I have trouble taking the word of a man who basically ignored economic trends by not preparing for the worst. I believe Munson did not care what happened with the economy, it is his last year in office, and he had a legacy to build. How do you justify cutting the budget when you can ‘pretend’ everything is going to be fine down the road. I have often been told by many people that Munson is a positive man, and I believe that, but IMO, lying to yourself and the public to get what you want is very negative, very negative indeed. I have been saying it for years that Munson has put his priorities above the public’s best interest, and while McKennan Park residents will be enjoying a new $170,000 shitter and the Rhino’s at the zoo have a new shed to sleep in the rest of us and the next mayor are going to have to figure out how to fix this shortfall and overspending by Munson.
The first thing the next mayor needs to do on day one is fire Eugene and anyone who is loyal to him in the finance office, and employ someone who is in touch with reality.
We’ll be out of this recession by January, but it won’t be until at least next summer before jobs come back.
My 401k has been out of the recession for three months now – the three best months it’s ever had.
I agree, my investments that I lost last year will probably recover in 2010, but even if people in SF get jobs by January, they will have to play catch up, and when you are playing catchup, you pay bills off, not go buy things at the mall. Eugene and Munson live in a dream world.
We deserve competant leadership. A mayor and council in most cities would have recognized this downturn and dug in. City leaders further themselves without regard for citizens. Yes, there will be a recovery but it will take longer here. Meanwhile, an important first step is to refocus on the public part of public service.
“and when you are playing catchup, you pay bills off, not go buy things at the mall.”
l3wis, I wish everybody did this. I don’t think we would be in such a financial crisis we did. The people I know will be at the mall.
Doesn’t Sioux Falls lose property tax money when it allows Sanford to take every house for a 20 block range? That is money the city will never get back.
Hate to break it to you Helga, but property tax is property tax, so Sanford pays them just like everyone else.
A few years back I saw a breakdown of the county’s largest property tax bills and the Empire Mall was number one followed by Sanford. Considering the growth of Sanford in the past several years, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn they have taken over the number one position…so they pay millions and millions in property taxes every year.
Now granted I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some abatements in place for new construction, but they are still paying a huge pile of money into the system.
All of that aside – the people displaced from those homes need to go somewhere…it isn’t as if they just disappear. Thus they probably buy homes elsewhere in town and pay property taxes just like they always have.
I guess there are plenty of reasons to now like the hospital expansions, but taxes probably shouldn’t be one of them considering all the revenue they bring into our city/county/state.
Cost- but they pay less as a not-for-profit, then homeowners do for the same amount of land, point being, it would make more sense to let Sanford expand in undeveloped land then in already developed neighborhoods. You both make relevant points.