Only in Sioux Falls would our city officials make it’s residents pay for something the Feds are responsible for. I am amazed how the city will bully it’s citizens into paying higher taxes, higher rates and turned the city into practically a police state with their code enforcement, but when the Feds tell them NO, they roll over like a dog and play dead.

Sioux Falls officials are moving ahead with plans to issue bonds for a major flood control project, two months after the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers failed to fund its share of the project.

This is silly for many reasons. 1) The levees are Federal property and the responsibility of the Federal government not the city of Sioux Falls. 2) FEMA, a Federal agency, created this bogus floodplain, they should be responsible for fixing it 3) Only 11% of the Federal stimulus has been distributed. Who knows, we may still get the money.

The amount of the bond is calculated at $29.4 million, which would include the Corps’ share as well as about $12 million for the city to reconstruct the 41st Street Bridge. It could be the last major bond issue for Mayor Dave Munson, who leaves office next year.

Yes, as a city we are responsible for fixing the bridge, the bike trails and landscaping, but that’s it. But there is more to the story;

The bonds were sold competitively and garnered five bids. The winning bid had a 4.13 interest rate on the life of the bonds – much lower than officials expected. The difference between the low bid and high bid amounted to $1.4 million in interest costs.

Hmmmm. 4.13% interest rate? Boy I wish I could get that for my mortgage. Kind of sounds like the hub-bub about our tax petition drive affecting interest rates for bonds was COMPLETE BULLSHIT! Just another fear and smear tactic by the misleader in Chief, King Dave.

The success of Tuesday’s bond, as well as the potential for low borrowing costs on the upcoming flood control bonds, rests in part with the high credit rating issued to the city by Moody’s Investors Service, a credit rating agency.

In a report issued Monday, Moody’s indicated that Sioux Falls is likely to “continue solid growth over the long run after emerging from its mild recession, fueled by above-average population growth,” low business taxes and “high-wage employment opportunities.” The report noted that unemployment remains low when compared to the national level.

Don’t you mean NO BUSINESS TAXES and LOW-WAGE opportunities? Apparently Schwan is working her magic with Moody’s to. But I found this next piece of info interesting;

“Restructuring of John Morrell’s operations nationally is a risk,” the report said, as well as uncertainties in the city’s financial services industry.

Gee, haven’t heard anything from City Hall, the Chamber of Commerce or the Development Foundation about how they are going to try to keep JM’s here. Typical of supposed leaders in our community, “Just ignore the problem and it will go away.”

Jessica Cameron, a senior management consultant with The PFM Group in Minneapolis said, “Sioux Falls is considered by the rating agencies to be very vibrant.”


Cameron, who is serving as the city’s financial adviser, said there hasn’t been a date set for the flood control bonds.

Well Jessica ‘too good to drive to Sioux Falls so I take a plane on taxpayer’s dime everytime I come here’ Cameron, isn’t it your job to promote vibrancy in our city? Isn’t that what we pay you for? And while we are on that subject, why do we need to pay a financial advisor when we have 22 people working in our finance office?

Officials are eager to get started. But before they can, the Corps must sign an agreement that allows Sioux Falls to advance it money, Public Works Director Mark Cotter said. That agreement, after making the rounds at various offices, is at Corps headquarters in Washington.


“They have up to 60 days to review it,” Cotter said. “We’re hoping to cut that down to two weeks if they’ll do it.”

No, let’s hope they decide to fix what they own with their money, not ours.


8 Thoughts on “Sioux Falls taxpayer’s to subsidize the Federal government

  1. Plaintiff Guy on July 9, 2009 at 7:06 am said:

    Phillips to nowhere, baseball fields in Iowa, the crack neighborhood swimming pool, and now levees. All are escavation projects. One mayor’s buddy dirt contractor is getting rich. A better dirt project would be building a moat around city hall. We’d tell them it’s for security. In part, it is. They’ll need a secure location when taxpayers revolt. In reality, city hall could become a high security prison for political Madoff-style felons from this king’s reign.

  2. l3wis on July 9, 2009 at 7:15 am said:

    I found it interesting that where the levees are the lowest (out by airport) there is no plans. If you go to the city website and look at the city’s PowerPoint presentation they overview it;

    Funny that the only place the floodplain exists is where 800 properties are, but when the river is surrounded by cornfields, no floodplain. I have said all along that this is a boondoggle by FEMA for insurance companys and the city is just rolling over as usual.

    It is also a monopoly. According to Jeff Schmidt with the city in an ‘Inside Town Hall’ interview everyone has to use the same provider mandated by FEMA.

  3. Plaintiff Guy on July 9, 2009 at 12:05 pm said:

    Sounds like New Orleans. Dikes around the city but outside areas unprotected. Outside flooding bleeds into the city and there’s still flooding on both sides of the levees.

  4. l3wis on July 9, 2009 at 12:10 pm said:

    I mispoke, the flood insurance is provided by FEMA. You buy it from the Feds. Funny, we can trust the Feds with flood insurance but not with health insurance. Looks like we need another Tea Party!!!!

  5. Costner on July 9, 2009 at 2:56 pm said:

    The thing is, flood insurance isn’t cheap, and half the time those paying it are doing so due to politics rather than water levels. It is just some imaginary line drawn up by someone who has likely never set foot in the area and has zero knowledge about specifics to the region.

    Then you have the flip side where people pay for it and receive payouts time and time again because the same houses can be flooded out 3 or 4 times and our government never cancels the policy.

    If that were a private insurer, I can promise you people would not be allowed to rebuild in a floodplane or on a coastal region prone to flooding every few years. Somehow I don’t think FEMA should be paying to rebuild homes down in Galveston when their lifespan is no more than 10 years. If someone wants to put themselves at risk so be it, but why should other taxpayers have to subsidize their stupidity?

  6. l3wis on July 9, 2009 at 3:14 pm said:

    It gets more interesting. I talked to a reporter this afternoon (who clarified the insurance thing for me) they told me that FEMA has asked SF to be at the 100 year flood level, but what level are we at now? They called the CORP and asked. They asked, “Is it at a 20 year level? 40? 90?” The CORP didn’t know. Funny huh? The CORP asks SF to be at a 100 year level, but have no fk’ing idea where we are at now.

    Excuse me while I take the football away from the monkey.

  7. l3wis on July 9, 2009 at 3:15 pm said:

    On top of that, it seems the only councilor who sees this is a big freaking joke is Costello, who happens to have a business in the floodplain.

  8. Plaintiff Guy on July 9, 2009 at 6:23 pm said:

    This will eventually be Fargo circa 2005. Wait till we flood and the feds throw big bucks this way. Otherwise, city nitwits will steer the flood waters inside but not outside the city. They look good with voters while making their contractor buddies and themselves wealthy. Cry wolf and the citizens respond but the result is unproductive.

Post Navigation