Munson

What does L & C water system have to do w/Sales Tax? NOTHING!

Mayor Munson seems to be up in arms over the sales tax decrease initiative (Argus Leader), which is no surprise, well it kinda is. It will have NO EFFECT on his budget and will have to be dealt with by the next mayor and council. By the time this takes effect, there will be at least 3 to 5 new councilors and a new mayor. Secondly Munson seems to be spinning the story,

Munson bristled at accusations that he hasn’t overseen responsible growth during his time at the helm, pointing to major street construction projects on 57th and 26th streets as recent examples.

“We planned Lewis & Clark for growth,” he said, referring to the water project. “Maybe under their scenario we don’t need Lewis & Clark. I think that’s crazy.”

First off, this decrease won’t take ANY money away from street construction (I’ll get to that later) and secondly Lewis & Clark is being paid by a loan the city took out that is being paid off from increased water rates, not sales tax. We also may receive money from the Federal Government (don’t hold your breath though, it seems neither presidential candidate is too interested in that). Like Rudy Guilliani and 9/11 everytime someone wants to cut the budget, Dave brings up Lewis & Clark. Cut the bull Dave.

As for street construction money being taken away, this is also a myth;

Officials warn that Sioux Falls will continue to lag on new road construction if the tax doesn’t go to a full cent. That, in turn, would hurt economic growth at a time when the national economy already is in precarious shape.Officials warn that Sioux Falls will continue to lag on new road construction if the tax doesn’t go to a full cent. That, in turn, would hurt economic growth at a time when the national economy already is in precarious shape.

It is merely $5 million dollars that will have to be cut from the Capital Improvement Budget (Basically a slush fund that pays for all the goodies (wants) in our city). In fact Munson mentions a great cut in the article.

Munson pointed out that McKennan Park next year is budgeted to receive $615,800 for upgrades.

Huh?! They just received upgrades this year already. Another example of wasteful spending.

And it seems councilor Costello went over to the dark side,

“They are fully within their rights to do what they are doing,” Costello added. “I personally would not sign that petition.”

Why wouldn’t you sign it Pat? I sign petitions all the time with stuff I don’t agree with. I signed the Initiative 11 petition, I signed Nader’s and Bob Barr’s petition to be on the ballot in South Dakota. I think it’s good to let the citizens decide. This is what a democracy is about. Do we want to let citizens decide on what they want to spend $5 million dollars on, or do we want 4 councilors, developers, special interests and a mayor decide?

I think we know the answer to that question.

What’s so wrong with open government?

I did this toon in response to an Amendment that councilor Staggers proposed on changing the language in a budget appropriation. He wanted it to state that raising property taxes is a ‘tax increase’ (which technically it is). The council was split, which surprised me, and Munson voted against the proposed (transparent) language. Very dissapointing.

Here it is from the minutes;

A motion to amend was made by Council Member Staggers and seconded by Council Member Anderson Jr. to amend the title of the ordinance to comply with City Ordinance 2-22 (d), to read “An Ordinance of the City of Sioux Falls, SD providing appropriations and the means of financing them which includes a property tax increase of 2.9% or $1,101,930 of tax levies for the Fiscal Year ending December 31, 2009″.

 
Vote to amend:  Roll Call:  Yeses, Litz, Staggers, Anderson, Jr., Beninga, 4.  Noes, Brown, Costello, Jamison, Knudson, 4.  Mayor Munson broke the tie with a no vote.  Motion Failed.

Why I opposed the Sales Tax increase

Matt from the Argus Leader wrote a great column about the sales tax increase. Though he makes some good points he missed why some of us opposed the tax. I opposed the tax because I feel the city has made very poor choices in the past 6 years when it comes to road funding. Our tax revenue has doubled in the past decade, yet our retail tax rate has not decreased and we are behind on road construction. What does this mean? It means our city is not spending our money wisely. With that kind of revenue increase we should be driving on well maintained and new roads or our taxes should be low – neither is true. Now that the National economy is tanking it has become more evident that a sales tax increase will be an extra burden on SF residents.

I have often thought that if politicians use common sense when they make decisions, they will make good decisions, when do not use common sense they make dumb decisions. The sales tax increase was not a common sense decision.

Get it dummies?