Sales Tax revenue in SF up about 3.2% from last year

by

Okay, this is good news. But certainly not organize a blowout BBQ bash good news. More like, I’m going to eat at Red Rossa instead of Burger King for lunch kind of news. See, when you factor in inflation and the fact sales tax revenue was down last year a 3.2% increase is kind of like, well, ah, really nothing.

Of course, I’m sure they will talk it up at the informational meeting today, but seriously, just look at the numbers: SFTAX

I also can’t help to bring up the fact that taxpayers have been bilked for $45 million for arterial streets while developers (who were supposed to give equal amount) have put in under a million. Don’t remember this meeting when they begged for the tax increase and promised to put in matching funds? It was the meeting where Quen Be De Knudson was watching TV and complaining how she was tired. In fact she was so damn tired she wasn’t using her brain and voted for the tax increase. Boy, that turned out well.

Posted in: Sioux Falls, Taxes

10 Thoughts on “Sales Tax revenue in SF up about 3.2% from last year”

  1. Tom H. on February 21, 2012 at 8:49 am said:

    In the Twin Cities, there is a metro-wide 0.25% sales tax that funds transit. By my rough calculations, an identical tax here could raise around $11M a year for transit here. The Twin Cities fund (called the CTIB) takes in about $90M a year. By 2020, about 12 years into its existence, the CTIB will have leveraged its funds to build the following transit system:

    4 light rail lines
    2 bus rapid transit lines
    2 or 3 commuter rail lines

    I know $90M per year is a lot more than $11M a year, but SF is also a lot smaller than the Twin Cities. A lot of people think building a high-quality transit system is an impossibility in a small city like Sioux Falls, but a little imagination (and some political will to raise a small tax) could provide a huge boost to this city, and help set it apart as someplace ready for the future.

    I don’t think everyone here realizes the awesome opportunity that SF has to levy a full 2% local sales tax. Most municipalities live off of property taxes alone, and maybe a 0.5% sales tax if they’re lucky. We should make use of this awesome opportunity.

  2. Scooter on February 21, 2012 at 9:34 am said:

    And if the city had a little forethought they could have used the railroad tracks they ripped out along 26th street and I229 for a small South East to downtown commuter… I also thought they could have paved them and made another bike trail linking the existing bike trail at Cliff and I229 with downtown.

    Maybe we should do either with some of the tracks they are planning to move???

    All of this takes someone in the city government or council to want to work for the people, not the special interest groups or developers with another tax shelter!

  3. matt70 on February 21, 2012 at 12:07 pm said:

    Why do you think we need any commuter transportation other than our own private cars? Have you ever seen a city bus full? The transfer station on South Louise – has there ever been a car in that lot besides a cop car? Light rail commuter transportation in a city of 160,000? That will be a sure fire money pit for whatever entity ponies up the money for it. We just aren’t a big enough urban area to justify such an expenditure and we won’t be for quite some time.

  4. Tom H. on February 21, 2012 at 12:50 pm said:

    Probably light rail transit is not appropriate for Sioux Falls. Streetcars could be a possibility.

    As far as the “SF isn’t a big enough city for this” argument… There is a definite relationship between land use and transportation, and as long as we maintain the development policies we have (one car per person, everybody drive everywhere) we will NEVER be a truly urban area, no matter how populous we become. What I’m saying is, an investment in transit, to make it a DESIRABLE transportation option, could change the fabric of this town.

    Also, planning for a future of $5, $8, $10, or even $20 / gallon gasoline seems like prudent planning. Think how much money gets sucked out of the local economy for every cent the price of gas goes up! And remember, gasoline isn’t subject to local sales taxes. Kicking our addiction to oil can have real, tangible economic benefits (the so-called “green dividend”).

  5. matt70 on February 21, 2012 at 1:40 pm said:

    I am all for getting us off the crude oil addiction. I will buy an electric car when the price is affordable and the batteries hold a longer charge. Affordable in my world means under $20,000.

  6. l3wis on February 21, 2012 at 1:58 pm said:

    I have often thought that street cars should run 24/7 at least on 41st and Minnesota. Not only would it save us in transit costs, it would be much more affordable for people.

  7. Tom H. on February 21, 2012 at 2:28 pm said:

    I hate to bring this up again, but a 4-mile-long streetcar line (like from DT to the Mall, along Minn. Ave and 41st St) would probably cost somewhere in the $100M range, with about $2M in annual operating costs, about $1M of which would be covered by fares.

    If only we had an extra $100M around to spend on a transformative civic improvement project…

  8. Detroit Lewis on February 21, 2012 at 4:13 pm said:

    Yeah, no kidding 🙂

  9. l3wis on February 21, 2012 at 4:21 pm said:

    Back to the financial report. The slow growth truly shows why we cannot afford a new EC. It shows that a facility of that size will NEVER be self-sustainable or profitable in this town.

  10. Tom H. on February 21, 2012 at 6:57 pm said:

    Didn’t they assume something like 5% annual growth for 22 years in their financial analysis? Crazy.

Post Navigation