Like clockwork, the Chamber tries to kill the most prudent and aware city councilors;
Forward Sioux Falls Agreement Approved – Three Councilors DissentIn recent years, the City has required signed agreements with those organizations it invests in to help develop our community. That includes, for example, the Sioux Falls Development Foundation, Downtown Sioux Falls and, for the first time, Forward Sioux Falls. We agree that good agreements make for good partners and this is an important way for the City to do business.During Tuesday’s City Council meeting, the agreement between the City and Forward Sioux Falls was on the agenda for approval. The agreement includes the terms, conditions and responsibilities of the parties, the planned $400,000 per year the city will invest and the notation that funds must be approved each year by the Council. Forward Sioux Falls and City leadership supported the agreement.After the City presentation and comments by FSF Co-chair Mark Shlanta, a motion was made to defer approval to September. That motion failed 3-5. More dialogue ensued and a motion was made to approve the agreement which prevailed on a 5-3 vote. Yes votes included Erickson, Kiley, Rolfing, Selberg and Erpenbach. No votes included Starr, Neitzert and Stehly.A main concern expressed was the idea of a multi-year pledge. It was noted that the City does not regularly express funding support in this way for other programs. However, the structure of Forward Sioux Falls is as a five-year program. Private enterprise understands this and that is how they pledge their investments so it seems logical all partners would do the same. Further, FSF needs funding certainty for starting and developing programs with long-term time horizons. Finally, this is nothing new for the City. Prior FSF campaigns have also included multi-year pledges from the City as well as other investors. Some councilors seemed to treat this as a new idea when it has been this way for preceding campaigns.We respect the fact that lawmakers need to vote their conscience and each of those voting no did express their general support for Forward Sioux Falls. I’m always reminded, however, that in legislative matters words do not count—only votes do.We thank the five Councilors who voted to approve the agreement and we thank the City Administration for working with Forward Sioux Falls to continue a program with an unprecedented track record of economic development success. We look forward to working with the Council to convey the important work of Forward Sioux Falls and our progress over the next years. The next step for the City will be, of course, the 2017 city budget.
The sick irony of all this is that whether the Chamber wants to admit it or not, they need the full support of the council throughout the year, on many projects, some worthwhile, some not. And by shaming three of them publicly in this matter was not a good call, in fact it was wildly childish.
All the three were asking for was a year to year accounting (Erpenbach also asked for it, but voted for it anyway), something Forward Sioux Falls was not willing to give. So yes, their votes did count. They told them that arrogance, attitude and elitism would not be tolerated. I applaud the three councilors for standing up for our public treasury and asking the right questions about a program that has yet to prove itself.
And BTW, some words do count; The Sioux Falls Chamber look like egotistical fools.
I wouldn’t expect anything less from the guy in charge of FSF who hired the CFO that got caught with his hand in the cookie jar(SDN)
They pointed out why a multi-year agreement was important to them and laid out some of the precedent. They then went out of their way to indicate that they respect why those individuals may have voted no, but also pointed out, politely, that talk is cheap and votes are all that matters. Also true.
Come on. You’re not so thin-skinned as to think this is shaming. Don’t be ridiculous. Heaven forbid anyone ever disagree with your buddies.
That is one of the most ignorant and politically naive things I have ever seen.
Politicians have long memories and council membership changes. There’s no guarantee that funding will be approved by a future council and agreements can be terminated for any reason.
Like if the City is suffering from financial hardship due to lower revenue for example.
Amish pennsylania german dutch have a time told practice of shunning annnnd lost my train of thought
kg obg IaAl LOL
I pay sales tax daily, income tax quarterly, and property tax annually. Citizens get paid weekly or monthly. Mortgage, rent, car payment, and/or utilities are due immediately. The city budget is annually. Supposedly, the chamber is business people. Any business plan is one year with a 5 year forecast. Why should Forward Sioux Falls be paid beyond the end of the world?
It’s more public funds fraud beyond the end of Huether corruption. Stop it.
“… the structure of Forward Sioux Falls is as a five-year program. Private enterprise understands this and that is how they pledge their investments so it seems logical all partners would do the same.”
An annual budget with regular reports of accountabilty are truly shortcomings in acceptance of funding from a government “partner”. Perhaps Forward Sioux Falls (and the rest of the crony capital quasi-government economic development “engines” in this state [e.g. SF Development Foundation]) might be better served to recruit an additional $400k per year “investment” from entrepreneurs … engaged in private enterprise.
A long-term gov’t funding commitment absent of routine and regular audit and accountability. What could go wrong ? [wispers – EB-5, Gear Up / MCEC ].