Citizens for Reponsible Sales Tax

So why did we need to take out the $38 million dollar bond?

Most of the time Sioux Falls city hall makes some rather dumb moves, but this week has been rather odd and suspicious to say the least. As you know, a few weeks back, Mayor Munson was chomping at the bit to get a $38 million dollar bond passed because the levee project just had to be completed ahead of schedule – well – because Munson said so. Than there was a possibility that the Feds may pay us back. Yeah right.

I have long believed this was a ploy to stop our tax initiative by scaring us into believing it may be illegal, turns out it wasn’t. So on Monday they tried to guilt us into ending the drive by telling us the rates may go up on the loan because of our initiative, probably not.

Now the city is saying we may not have to take the loan out at all,

Earlier this month the city council voted to issue 38 million dollars worth of bonds to pay for the project, but they’d rather see the federal government pay for the project right away. 

“There’s a good chance that the 38 million dollar bond ordinance that’s been passed may be able to be reduced,” Cotter said. 

Can you say, Clusterf***?! This is what happens when you play games – you waste time and resources when you don’t need to. If anyone is costing taxpayer’s more money, it’s not our initiative, it’s your childish shananigans.

We are continuing our drive this Saturday with a door to door campaign.

UPDATE: Munson and councilor Jamison said in an email yesterday that they would not sit down with us for a briefing on Friday. Pretty obvious why, they may not need to take out the loan. I’ll post the email when I get it.

City Hall continues to ‘play games’ w/ our tax initiative

UPDATE: We have requested a briefing with the city on Friday. We will see what happens.

Munson and his minions are continuing to play games while using your tax money to fly in consultants from Minneapolis to tell you we are ‘causing problems.’

A ballot initiative to lower the sales tax in Sioux Falls could cost the city higher interest rates when it borrows money later this year, a financial consultant told city councilors Monday.

Once they figured out they couldn’t scare us with mumbo-jumbo lawyer talk (ironically a lawyer that are tax money paid for) they had to go to plan B and fly-in the financial consultant for the bonds and call out another boogy-man. Yeah, apparently it was too far for the consultant to drive, so she FLEW to Sioux Falls – Don’t get me started about that.

City councilors asked Cameron what would happen if the initiative were called off, and Cameron said she would recommend a competitive sale.

Funny, no one from the bonding office contacted us before Monday’s ‘surprise’. (watch the info meeting – Jan 26, 2009) They know nothing about our intentions or our progress. I think this was cooked up by Munson to get us to pull the plug. I find it extremely hard to believe that cutting $5 million from a $416 million budget would affect rates. Obviously $411 million is plenty to cover debt service on a $38 bond interest payments. I’m no accountant, but I am no dummy either. As one commenter in the Argus said;

How many times has Sioux Falls defaulted on an interest payment in the past 50 years? How many cities in the US have had their bond interest rates raised on them when they have given the taxpayers relief by reducing taxes? Another phantom boogy man from those who want to screw the taxpayer and aggrandize government.

But now we are up against the wall? Though you and I know this is total bologna, the propaganda machine over at City Hall has turned it up a notch. So what are our options? Well the way I look at it, even if we pull the plug, what prevents the bonding company from still seeking secondary rates? Well nothing. They can blame us either way because of the uncertainity.

I also find it ironic that this was ‘sprung’ on the council at the last minute, right when the city financial advisor, Rowenhorst was supposed to give his budget address, that he conveniently had to postpone to Wednesday. This ‘stinks’ all around. Not just for the initiative and the bond rates, but that our City government can’t give it’s citizens an economy update at a public meeting. Apparently the over 20 employees and multiple consultants the finance department has working for them didn’t have enough ‘time’ to get a report together . . . Yeah . . .  right.

Ehrisman noted that the group has been collecting signatures since October, long before the council voted to authorize the bonds earlier this month.”This should have been brought up during the vote or before the vote,” he said.

That’s just it, why is the council voting on something they don’t have all the information on? Well, because they do it all the time. Half of them chose to raise our taxes without paying attention to the recession trend, than another majority decided to take out a bond, without knowing what rate they will be paying. I would have to say that is pretty incompetent.

So what’s the solution? Give in to City Hall? We’ll see.

Is the Sioux Falls Department of Parks & Recreation a monstrosity?

I compared apples to apples and all I can say is, damn right it is!

I first want to say that Sioux Falls has an amazing park system. But is it all useful? We continue to build new parks when we are not using the current parks we have to capacity. Take Yankton Trail for instance. Rumor has it the city only allows the park for competition, not to be used as a practice facility. Why is that? I have even heard stories of police intimidation if you are using certain parks just for recreation instead of competition. What Up?!

This summer I rode my bike to work almost every day on the bike trail. I found the trail to be well maintained and frequently used, I also found our parks are over manicured, watered, mowed, and maintained (what’s the point of mowing ½” of grass!?).

Why does the parks department and budget continue to grow at such a rapid rate, and what is the solution to slow it down a bit to an acceptable inflationary level? I suggest we stop building new parks for at least two years and do an extensive study on how much our parks are used by monitoring their usages throughout the week and seasons. If certain parks have little usage – we sell off the land. I also suggest we build smaller parks that are easier and less expensive to maintain. I also think we should reduce the size of some of our larger parks. One thing I observed this summer is that smaller parks are more populated. Not sure why? Maybe people feel safer?

I decided to look at another city similar to ours in climate, size and growth. Billings, Montana is two-thirds the size in population to Sioux Falls.

Billings spends $5,714 a year per developed acre of parkland.

Sioux Falls spends $11,546 a year per developed acre of parkland.

Can you imagine if it cost you that much to maintain your lawn every year! Even if you feritlized, watered and paid a lawn service for an acre of land you are still looking at about $2,200

You must also remember, the $33 Million is the 2009 operating budget ONLY! This does not include building and developing new park land, that is in a separate budget called the CIP.

Sioux Falls maintains 4.8 times more parkland than Billings and even if you adjust for the population difference Sioux Falls still maintains 3.22 times more parkland than Billings. Sioux Falls budget is 9.78 times larger than Billings and 6.52 times larger when you adjust for population – Holy Crap! This is pretty amazing considering the similarities between Sioux Falls and Billings. If you go to Billings Parks and Recreation page you will see that they also offer as many activities as Sioux Falls. In Sioux Falls defense we charge visitors a tax to buy stuff here to help fund our parks. In Billings they are not so lucky, they only have a state income tax to work with. Not only does Billings maintain developed acres on such a small budget they also maintain over 2,000 acres of undeveloped parks but they also irrigate their parks like we do, from the river. When I spoke to one of the park’s directors about his operating budget, he said they were underfunded (well duh) but when I told him our budget, he was dumbfounded, as was I when I heard his budget.

What is the problem? My guess is Sioux Falls is paying too much for outside services and over-maintaining. It’s not like Billings is a couple bucks short of us on funding, they are millions and millions of dollars shorter than us. It tells me that Sioux Falls Parks and Recreation is in a constant state of overspending. We can have all the same things we have now, we just need to start shopping at the dollar store.

How has the Parks budget grown to such a massive level without some oversight? That’s just it, there is no oversight or accountability. The Parks board meetings are not televised or broadcast on the city website. The other problem is that the Parks board is all volunteer. I think they need to be elected officials. With a $33 million dollar operating budget a year, they operate almost as a separate entity from the city. In fact, up until a few years ago, the Parks and Rec department made their own decisions on public art, not consulting the Mayor, Council or Visual Arts Commission before placing public art. Kinda takes the word ‘Public’ out of ‘Public Art’.

Once we ask for accountability from our Parks and Rec department not only will you see incredible savings to taxpayers, you will see more CITIZEN friendly parks.

Back from the Dead

We will be continuing our petition drive, the Argus Leader writes about it today;

A petition drive to lower the sales tax in Sioux Falls will continue after sponsors sought legal advice Tuesday, one day after a lawyer representing the city said that lowering the tax would be illegal.

People have to remember this is about sending a message to city hall that spending, borrowing and taxation is out of control and we expect better from the next council and Mayor in 2010. It is of no consequence to Mayor Munson or the other last term councilors. They have had their chance to be accountable and have failed on some fronts.

The worst part about this is that the city paid an out-of-state attorney (with our taxdollars) to mislead the very citizens that paid her tab.

On Monday night, Minneapolis lawyer Betsey Aby told city councilors it would violate state law to lower the sales tax because portions of the city’s sales tax are obligated to pay its outstanding bonds.

Sioux Falls lawyer Dan Brendtro disagrees with Aby’s opinion.

“I think that she is flat-out wrong,” he said after meeting with Stehly.

Brendtro said the decrease sought by Citizens for a Responsible Sales Tax would not imperil the city’s ability to pay off existing bonds. He argues that the state constitution requires local governments to collect a “sufficient” amount of money to honor debt payments.

“It doesn’t say you can’t lower your taxes,” he said.

Remember, this initiative is about letting the citizens decide. How you vote on it is up to you.