The city council will be considering cuts to the (para)transit system

The council really is not happy about this.  This seems to be MMM, Cooper and Turbak’s idea.

Any semblance of a public discussion about this I think is only going to happen in the upcoming work session. Thursday, August 15 at 3:00.

Remember, it will be in the outer chambers so there will be no Citylink or SIRE recording. Hopefullly the room will be wall-to-wall people.



12 comments ↓

#1 scott on 08.11.13 at 8:10 am

How can a city so flush with money as MMM keeps telling us, consider cutting something like this?

#2 Testor15 on 08.11.13 at 9:03 am

I was amazed how stupid the mayor and most council members appeared during and after the $40million in cash announcement. We have no cash except for the borrowed money sitting in the bank on the day of the announcement.

There are federal funds subsidizing the transit system. Are they attempting to redirect paratransit funds into the regular budget to hide the real purpose of balancing the books?

#3 Poly43 on 08.11.13 at 12:46 pm

How can a city so flush with money as MMM keeps telling us, consider cutting something like this?

Because we have a lot of other entities in this town to keep happy.

craig lloyd, (tifs)

Corporate elitists, ( private suites and loge boxes to wine and dine clients in an otherwise more empty than not event center)

Swim teams, (20 million dollar 50 meter indoor pool)

mrs huether, (SF tennis)

3 mile Russell ave upgrade, ( 23 million dollar road to the private suites and loge seating)

And the Ellis article in the argus today? Probably the worst piece of scripted journalism handed to him by city hall in all the years he has worked there. Federal subsidies aside, it takes 3 to 4 million a year out of the general fund to keep SAM running. Does not help that the good mayor slashed the sales tax contribution to SAM to the bone either.

Ellis suggests we have growing budgetary pressures. Gee. I wonder why? Ellis also says “people say” the system faces a 25 million dollar deficit. Who are these people who say this, and what orifice did they pull that figure out of? Do all journalists just run with whatever figures the city bean counters throw at them? Ellis, if you really want to wear a white hat in this, dig a little deeper, like a real journalist would.

To the guy wearing the black hat, I say hang em and hang em high.

#4 anonymous on 08.11.13 at 2:08 pm

MMM’s Movers and Shakers list of priorities goes on and on:

South Dakota Junior Football Association 4.2 million (approved during Munson’s Administration, and allowed to proceed by Huether and the Council w/o SDJF’s 1.5 million dollar contribution in hand–taxpayer’s left on the hook)

Ice Sports Association 1.5 million

Community Tennis Association $500,000

Sioux Falls Aquatics Association potentially 20 million in capital costs and $700,000 annually in operating costs

Nine TIFS during MMM’s term:

Lloyd 4 TIFs

Dunham 3 TIFs (including the Costco TIF where they walked away with 3 to 4m in proceeds from the sale of some of the land included in the TIF)

Mike Crane 1 TIF (partners unknown)

Jeff Scherschligt 1 TIF (2005/Munson)

Raven Industries 1 TIF

Sanford 1 TIF (yes, seriously, Sanford!!)

And, if the Railroad Relocation Project happens, this will be just the tip of the iceberg for TIFs

River Greenway Project Phase I and II 10 million
(there are currently four phases planned at an estimated cost of 36 million) Huether has said, if he is re-elected, he is going to get r done!!

Denny Sanford Premiere Events Center 117 million (true cost 180+ million)

etc., etc., etc.,…………

#5 Helga on 08.11.13 at 3:47 pm

The Argus editorial says today “Under the circumstances, it might be tempting to ask for his (Gants)resignation. But the reality is, with little more than a year left on his term, the ramifications of pushing such an agenda would be nastier than our state can tolerate.”
What great logic, your house is on fire but why bother to try to save it by calling the fire department, just wait til it burns to the ground.

#6 Helga on 08.11.13 at 3:48 pm

Sorry I just put my comment on the wrong story.

#7 Lamb Chislic on 08.11.13 at 5:29 pm

I smell a rat … and a ruse by MMM setting up the opportunity for him to propose a “solution” at the 11th hour, saving SAM and securing another voting block for his re-election.

#8 Joan on 08.11.13 at 5:44 pm

I found out Friday that I lost my battle with paratransit for my daughter. She has to start training this coming Thursday on the fixed route buses. This in spite of the fact that she doesn’t understand what she reads, or a lot of what people say, plus the fact that a lot of people can’t understand her. She doesn’t want to do the training, but the lady from paratransit that called on Friday said she had been told to do it. So in order for her to not get into trouble my daughter will be doing it, and then after that she will quit her job, because I don’t want her walking to the fixed route buses in thunder storms, freezing weather and on ice, plus extreme heat. They can’t fund paratransit more, but they can offer free recreational rides on the trolley. It’s funny paratransit had the money to contract with an employee from CCHS to help with the interview part of the riders recertification, which my opinion is this person tilts the process in favor of paratransit. Another thing I keep hearing whenever this transit problem is discussed on the news, they want to increase riders on the fixed route buses. That makes me think they are going to do this by kicking people off paratransit.

#9 l3wis on 08.11.13 at 10:28 pm

Oh, Mike. You give the tennis association that your wife runs (well you really run it) a half-million, then tell the handicap of this town, find your own ride. Then talk about how the ‘council’ has to make some ‘tough’ decisions when it comes to transit. It’s not a ‘tough’ decision. You fund public services and you give the big middle finger to the special interests. It really simple.

The amazing part, is all the while the mayor talks about ‘Jobs, Jobs, Jobs.’ Well you best have a car, because the bus aint taking you there anymore.

#10 LJL on 08.11.13 at 10:55 pm

Jonathan wrote a good article on this issue and I think he has the best take. I don’t see why Para needs to run longer hours than the fixed routes.

How about a logical solution, after the fixed route ends para transit rate changes to half the cost. $10 a ride after hours doesn’t seem too outrageous. That’s less than half the rate of a cab.

#11 Tom H. on 08.12.13 at 9:19 am

At least all the roads in town are re-paved and smooth… if you can afford the citizenship tax (i.e., if you own a car).

#12 Poly43 on 08.12.13 at 12:52 pm

The guy in the black hat writes…

can we afford to continue offering the Cadillac version of paratransit?

Mr Ellis, how can we as a society not continue to fund paratransit? If we can have the Cadillac version of events, of river greenways, of indoor pools, of indoor tennis, of junior football, then we can fund paratransit.

with growing budgetary pressures, there are calls to scale back paratransit

Calls by who? City bean counters? The same bean counters who spend spend spend in the areas mentioned in other posts here?

You’ll hear more people making that argument if, as warned, the system faces a $25 million deficit.

Again, who is saying this? “People say” is journalism 101 for the folks at Fox News.

Leave a Comment