February 2018

UPDATE: Sioux Falls end of the Year Financials, did we end 1.8% up from the year before?

Ironically I talked about this last night at the city council meeting before the Finance Director, Tracy Turbak lost his marbles. I figured we could get the end of the year financials from the State Department of Revenue. But that wasn’t my point, my point is that we should get that information from our Finance Department, especially before voting on a re-finance or spending $3.3 million in surplus.

A concerned citizen sent this to the city councilors yesterday after doing his own research. As I have been predicting we came in somewhere between 1-2%;

Subject: January 2018 2% Municipal Sales Tax

February 8, 2018 the local January 2018 2% municipal sales tax report was published on-line by the SD Dept. of Revenue.  The twelve month rolling growth rate is now 2.05%, an improvement from December 2017’s 1.8%; November 2017 was also 2.05%.

The most improved sector was retail trade (53% of the total), 0.93% 12 month rolling growth rate (Dec. 2017) to 1.41% (Jan. 2018).  The net dollar amount of this nearly 0.5% increase was $ 331,000 in 2% municipal sales tax.
Six of the eight retail trade sub-sectors contributed to the month to month gain.  Rank order of gainers: food stores, miscellaneous retail, apparel & accessory stores, eating & drinking establishments, furniture stores and auto dealers (about $ 394,000). Two sub-sectors of retail trade were a drag in January: building materials, general merchandise stores (about – $ 83,000).

Source: SD Dept. of Revenue, “Statistics for All Cities by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Major Group and Division,” Sioux Falls General Recap, Tax Due, p. 935.

Finance Director, Tracy Turbak ‘FREAKS’ on city council

If you FF to the discussion about the re-finance of the city’s bonds (1:03), you will see a very disturbed and angry finance director freak out on the council accusing them of not trusting him and not being able to figure out why they won’t approve one of his re-finance plans.

First off, like most things coming from the administration, the cards are held tightly to the jacket until the last minute when something needs to be ramrodded through. Turbak didn’t give the council the option of spending the surplus until the 2nd reading last night.

Secondly, most of the council wants to spend it on something else or NOT at all. They just haven’t had a discussion to determine what that is yet.

And lastly, as councilor Stehly pointed out, their probably needs to be proper public notice before that happens to follow open meetings laws, and the city attorney kind of agreed and said he needed to look into it.

So the council DID approve the refinance and told Turbak they will get back to him with a decision about the surplus hopefully in the next couple of weeks.

The council seemed bewildered why Tracy freaked out, but it was no surprise to me, because with the assistance of the mayor’s piss poor attitude towards the council, Tracy has often shown a great deal of contempt towards them, and has often ‘lipped off’ at councilors when they ask questions. In fact one councilor (I think Kiley) pointed out to Tracy that they WILL ask questions of him and expect answers.

Tracy was completely out of line last night, especially when following chain of command. While MMM may be his boss, Tracy does work for the ELECTED city council also and the more importantly the citizens they represent. And while he doesn’t have to take orders from them, they DO have to approve or disapprove his proposals.

He didn’t do a very good snow job on the council last night, and like MMM, Tracy’s days are also numbered.

*Tracy also made the comment that the end of the year financials usually are NOT released until the end of February each year. While that may be true, I think this year is unique due to the election and the fact Turbak was asking for a re-finance. It seems he has the information already, so why not release it early before asking the council to spend the surplus. It would be helpful.

Pierre Advocacy Update

Advocates, A bad bill is up tomorrow (Wed) Feb.14, 3:30pm.

 HB 1275 would all but abolish the initiated measure process. Its burdensome signature gathering requirements are designed to quash our ability to participate in direct democracy by creating arbitrary requirements by senate district. There’s a good letter in today’s Argus about this. 

Please urge these Rep’s to OPPOSE HB1275. Before 3:30 tomorrow(Wed), contact House State Affairs committee: Julie.Bartling@sdlegislature.gov, Arch.Beal@sdlegislature.gov, Lynne.DiSanto@sdlegislature.gov, Steven.Haugaard@sdlegislature.gov, Spencer.Hawley@sdlegislature.gov, Leslie.Heinemann@sdlegislature.gov, Isaac.Latterell@sdlegislature.gov, David.Lust@sdlegislature.gov, Mark.Mickelson@sdlegislature.gov, Kent.Peterson@sdlegislature.gov, Lee.Qualm@sdlegislature.gov, Larry.Rhoden@sdlegislature.gov, Tona.Rozum@sdlegislature.gov 

This measure could make the initiative process impossible to use altogether. Currently, initiated measures require signatures from voters numbering at least 5% of the total votes cast in the last gubernatorial contest. HB 1275 would require signatures numbering that 5% in each of 2/3 of all senate districts in South Dakota. This geographic signature requirement would make it nearly impossible to place initiated measures on the ballot in the future. 

• How many people even know their senate district? Currently, you write your county on every petition you sign, not your legislative district. HB1275 would replace that by requiring you to write your senate district instead. Every 10 years there is redistricting, which moves senate district lines. County lines don’t move.

• Requiring every signer to place their senate district of registration on the ballot is a wishful expectation that would invalidate hundreds of otherwise valid signatures. 

• Grassroots efforts would be woefully overwhelmed by this burdensome requirement. 

• Making matters worse, HB 1275 states that signatures from a particular senate district can ONLY be collected by circulators from that same senate district.  

• You would have to have 35 people, one from each district, standing together, petition in hand, in order to gather signatures at the State Fair or on college campuses.  

• HB 1275’s new requirements apply to initiated measures only, not to a referendum or an initiated constitutional amendment. They do not apply to the signatures people must gather to run for state-wide offices. This clearly indicates the anti-initiative purpose of this bill.

• Elections already serve the purpose of letting all South Dakotans weigh in – one voter, one vote.

• This is clearly an attack on the initiative process. 


HB 1275 is a bad bill. It doesn’t need amendments. It needs to go away. It would make it all but impossible for citizens to utilize their direct democracy process. It did not come from the Initiative and Referendum Task Force. It would only serve to undermine the initiative process.

 

Sioux Falls City Council Central District Candidate Curt Soehl seems to be the ‘chosen one’

You know what they say, follow the money.

While I have said we have good choices in central district candidates Bardon, DeBoer and Hurlbert I’m a bit wary of candidate Soehl after reading his financial report (FULL DOC:  Soehl-Finance )

It seems Mr. Soehl has a lot of big wheels behind him hoping they will get their corporate welfare rubber stamper on the city council to do their bidding.

Here’s a list of a few of his donors;

Cindy Huether (Mayor Huether’s wife)

Nathan Peterson (Sanford Health)

Lowell Hyland (Retired MD, Angel Investor)

Mark Wahlstrom (VP Business Development, First Dakota Title)

Dana Dykhouse (President of First Premier)

Scott Gullickson (VP at First Premier Bank)

Dave Sweet (Chairman of the Board, Ramkota Companies)

Nick Gustafson (Bender Commercial)

David Knutson (First Premier Bankcard)

Mike Crane (Developer)

Steve Erpenbach (Current Central District city councilor Michelle Erpenbach’s husband)

Michael Bender (Developer, Bender Commercial, chair of Jim Entenman’s mayoral campaign)

Dennis Breske (Commercial Realtor, NAI)

Craig Lloyd (Developer, Lloyd Companies)

The next financial report is due on April 5th (the Thursday before the Tuesday election). Hopefully all the candidate reports will be filed online by the end of the day Friday so voters have a chance to ‘follow the money’ before the election on Tuesday.

UPDATE: Sioux Falls City Council Agenda, Feb 13, 2018

UPDATE: There will discussion on this $900K beast tonight at the Council Meeting. I am told it will be pulled from the consent agenda. It seems the vendor is trying to pull a fast one in selling us this with a trade-in deal instead of a lease. The discussion should be good.

There is NO informational meeting on Tuesday. The Fiscal Committee meeting will be at 4 PM instead.

City Council Fiscal Committee

They will be discussing the different non-profits in Sioux Falls that receive tax subsidies from the city.

I find the discussion around what non-profits should get, if anything, from the city a good one. What I find puzzling is that the council is taking on this discussion BEFORE they have received an end of the year financial report. Wouldn’t this be helpful in determining what should be given?

It’s also interesting because the city council has already been told what there surplus is from last year, a little over $3 million, in which the administration has suggested they put towards debt and refinancing. I also find the delay in the end of the year report troubling because the state just announced today that tax revenue has been up over the past two months. Where does the state get it’s money from? Municipalities tax collection. So how is it the state already knows how our past couple of months have been, but the city can’t release last year’s data?

I think the city council should postpone any discussion on non-profit subsidies until they have an end of the year report. I also suggest that the Huether administration stop playing games and release that report ASAP. I also think the outgoing councilors Rolfing and Erpenbach shouldn’t be included in these discussions. They both have done enough damage with their idiotic proposal to have a run-off for council races. So stupid.

Regular City Council Meeting

Item #1, Approval of Contracts.

They are throwing over $123K at the Pavilion (they are doing a study on escalators, $11K). Seems like a weekly thing since Darrin Smith has taken over. The escalator study is funny because I thought that the Pavilion and city has given up on the escalators years ago. Maybe the $11K study will tell them once and for all to NOT get them 🙂

But the big expenditure is in fleet. If you think a $300K Snowcat was expensive, fleet thinks they need a bulldozer like $900K tractor. I guess if it is something they would use everyday it is worth the expense, but if it is a specialty item, they would be better off leasing such a piece of equipment.

Item #10, 2nd Reading, Approving the number of votes it takes for the charter revision commission to put items on the ballot. They want a super majority. (4 out of 5 votes). I think three votes are enough. Remember, the CRC doesn’t approve charter changes, they are simply putting items on the ballot for voters to decide. This year they didn’t approve any items for the Spring Election because a know-it-all attorney on the commission told them about all these slippery slopes he pulled from his butt. Very disappointing.

Item #11, 2nd Reading, Approving re-financing of bonds. While this is a good thing, I still think having the end of the year report would be helpful. Cart in front of the horse once again. Secret, Secret, Secret, RAMROD. The mayor will be hoodwinking all the way to the end.

Item #13, 1st Reading, Allowing more time for the council (and public) to review contracts before approval (7 days). While there is no harm in this ordinance, the real problem is the council not being able to sit at the negotiating table when important contracts come up, like the golf contract. Obviously the council doesn’t need to be involved with all of the city contracts, more than likely they don’t need to be involved in 90% of them. But when it comes to significant policy changes (like from lease to management) they need to be involved. Besides, THAT is there job according to charter, POLICY. Ironically that is the one thing the mayoral candidates DID NOT bring up last night, letting the council set policy and the mayor run the employees and daily operations of the city.

Item #15, Resolution, Gifting 80 feet of rail and railroad ties. Not that this is controversial, I’m just curious WTF these people are going to do with it? Railroad ties actually work pretty good for landscaping projects.