Sioux Falls City Council Informational meeting, Parking Hikes, Cell Phone Ban, Platting fee disappearance, and calling a Spade a Spade.

by

It seems the city council just can’t drop the cell phone ban (even though they already did). At the advice of our City Attorney Loophole David Fiddle-Faddle (who wasn’t present) he previously told council chair Anderson that the only thing the council could do is ask for an advisory vote, and if the majority voted in favor of the ban, it would go back to the council to approve the ordinance, which in turn is no different then what they were proposing to do anyway. I think it should be an initiative process and be citizen driven. Councilor Karsky seemed to be the only voice of reason on the council, pointing out that hands free or not, there is no difference in distraction. This is turning into a real cluster, and the one councilor who championed this to begin with was very quiet on the topic yesterday (Erpenbach, or as Mr. Ideals Anderson calls Michelle, ERF-EN-Bach.)

Anderson also pointed out during the monthly financial report that the platting fees and .08 tax collection for arterial roads had mysteriously disappeared from the reports. Probably they are tired of Anderson pointing out how much of a disastrous idea it was.

Councilor Jamison takes over as the school marm (since she was peepless) during the meeting and reminds director Kearney that the Indoor Pool is not being paid for with ‘cash’ but with paid back ‘borrowed money’ (levee repayment) and in the future he asked Don to refer to it that way. Don just mumbled a yes back to him.

But the shocker of the meeting was when a parking consultant arrived with all new parking fees, and mysteriously the director of parking, Q-Tip Smith, was not even in attendance to introduce them or answer questions.

Smart move Darrin.

Just a few years back the parking department bragged about being an enterprise fund that made the city so much money they could afford to buy scooters for the meter maids and gents and re-brand the whole system (look for the gold ‘P’). But all of sudden fast forward to the city’s largest budget ever and the mayor trying to grab from every cookie jar possible to pay for unneeded TIF’s and parking ramps for private businesses. While they are proposing to decrease some monthly rates in the ramps (to better fill them) they are proposing a large increase in parking meters (side streets from 60 cents to 75, and main roads from 75 cents to $1 per hour). Besides the fact that I find these hikes questionable since the system makes so much money (I think this is a back door plan to help pay for bonds on a new ramp for a private business) I have often said if we want to increase traffic downtown and promote it’s growth, we should make all ramps free and only charge at meters on main arterials (like Phillips and Main).

It will be interesting to see how the council plays this one out, and if director Smith decides to show up to answer questions.

 

Posted in: SF City Council, Sioux Falls

City Government Time Machine; Platting Fee Boondoggle, 9/15/08

by

Last night at the regular city council meeting a citizen brought up the failure of the platting fee idea to raise money for arterial roads, and he ultimately said ‘It should be repealed’.

I couldn’t agree more, it has been a complete failure, the plan that is.

In reality when the plan was proposed on September 15, 2008 (watch the meeting here).

It may have sounded good. It was simple, they would raise the 2nd penny tax to a full penny to help pay for arterial roads. The second part of the plan was what made it attractive. While raising the penny would help pay for 40% of the arterial roads, the developers would chip in 60% in platting fees.

That HAS not occurred. In fact they haven’t even come close to probably 4-5%. And while over the past 6 years the citizen taxpayers were putting in their share, the developers have contributed very little. Heck even a few years ago, a developer complained at a council meeting that the city wasn’t holding up their end of the deal by not building enough arterial roads like they promised. This developer was told, and rightly so, once the developers hold up their part of the deal the city would chip in.

When ever this is brought up (the terms we were sold) the developers have all kinds of excuses;

• The economy took a dump

(at the meeting that night, one proponent brought up the economy tanking, in fact that day, the dow dropped a record amount. The economy downturn was ALL over the news, but somehow SF developers thought they were immune. Ask them today about that immunity)

• They claimed they never said they would put in 60%

(over the past six years I have heard this LIE. Repeatedly during the above meeting the proponents said over and over again they would put in 60%. There was even a taxpayer funded website the city put up called movingsiouxfallsforward.org that claimed this amount.

• Public Works Director, Mark Cotter even repeated the plan

(He told Staggers in the meeting (1:06) that the plan was that the CIP would put in $35 million, the 2nd penny raise would put in $20 million and the developers would put in $30 million over the following 6 years. That has not even been a reality, not even close.

• As one opponent points out during testimony, there was nothing in the proposal to ‘legally bind’ the developers to put in what they promised. Nothing.

• And now that the economy has turned around and building is booming in Sioux Falls, will developers give us back pay on these platting fees to at least match what taxpayers had to put in (during an economic downturn) Of course not, just more excuses.

• The vote went down 4-4 with Munson breaking the tie and voting for the increase. Councilors Staggers, Costello, Beninga, Anderson voted against the increase and Councilors Brown, Knudson, Litz and Jamison voted for the increase.

• Even though this plan did fail, and the developers haven’t put their fair share in over the last 6 years, it hasn’t stunted growth at all. Why? Because once again, the taxpayers of SF have been bailing out the developers.

Some ‘Other’ highlights of the meeting;

• Mayor Munson gaveling me at the beginning of the meeting during public testimony when I made the accusation that the ethics commission were puppets for the administration. After he chews me out and tells me they are independent, I asked him, “But you appointed them? Correct?” He answered yes.

• Vernon Brown flipped his vote. When this first came up months earlier, Vern voted against it, this night he voted for it.

• Kermit points out that they weren’t following the proper state law to pass the platting fees (taxes) and should not even been voting on it.

• All the Proponents got to go first to testify, while the opponents had to wait almost 2 1/2 hours, instead of alternating speakers.

• Another funny moment was when Bill Peterson told Staggers that people weren’t flocking to move to Minot, ND to live anytime soon.

OTHER LINKS:

My KELO interview a year after the tax increase

DaCola Links

Posted in: Developers, Development, Platting Fees, SF City Council, Sioux Falls, Taxes

Platting Fee Surplus!? LMAO!

by

One reason I often shake my head at our local media is because they never tell the whole story, this story about platting fees is a prime example;

In 2009, the city added development fees when it raised the second penny sales tax to a full penny. So far the city has collected $750,000 more than they thought they would be getting in 2013.

What they leave out is that the taxpayers of Sioux Falls have contributed almost 13x times more to the arterial roads fund since it’s inception. And while I think it is wonderful that they have taken in more money this year (about fricking time!) I still contend that the developers have never held up their end of the deal by contributing 50% to the fund like they promised. Mayor Munson and the developers suckered the council at the time and have taken the taxpayer’s of SF for this money and have contributed very little.

That should have been the real story. Scroll down after clicking on this link to read my extensive posts about platting fees.

Posted in: Developers, Development, Sioux Falls

Platting Fee interview 6 PM today – KELO TV

by

I got interviewed this morning about my feelings on the platting fees being so low in comparison to the taxes collected for arterial roads (see graphic below). I touched on many topics, but here’s a summary

– I think it is unfair to mandate retail taxpayers to pay an extra tax when the developers are not

– I thought it was pretty obvious the night the council approved the tax increase that we were going into a recession

– I think the tax increase was just a ploy to max out our taxes to what state law allows so that it will be easier for the SF Event Center Task force to ask for another tax increase next year from the legislature.

– I think arterial streets should be built on a DEMAND basis. If developers start moving dirt, we start moving dirt.

– I pointed out that councilors Knudson, Jamison, Litz and Brown all had their campaigns funded by the very special interests that supported this tax increase.

Obviously not all of this will make it into a 3 minute news spot. KELO also interviewed Theresa Stehly and they were planning on an interview with Craig Lloyd, the main developer who was pushing this tax increase. Mark Cotter, city planner, may also be interviewed.

I guess we are only in a recession when it is hurting the developer’s pocketbooks, not the rest of ours.

City of Sioux Falls

Posted in: Platting Fees, Sioux Falls, Taxes

UPDATE: Sioux Falls IRAB Board fails to post agenda online 24 hours in advance

by

UPDATE: I was told this afternoon that the meeting did take place this morning, but this person was not in attendance so they are not sure how it went down. I guess the argument is that the agenda was posted, but in the May 27th meeting slot. Because you know, that makes sense 🙁

It seems this city can’t figure out how to post agendas. They of course have argued in the past that as long as the agenda is available at the Clerk’s office or posted on the door (DT Library) they can proceed. We will see if they decide to have the meeting tomorrow morning at 8 AM or postpone it? This was supposed to be the meeting where they discuss waiving platting fees (passing those infrastructure costs on to us with higher property taxes).

Posted in: Sioux Falls