SF City Council

Let’s stick with ‘trickle down’ economics Sioux Falls

I did not attend the 1st Annual Sioux Falls Economic Forum dreamed up by the City Council’s official Drama Queen, Greg Jamison, but did find some interesting details in the news blip about it;

The two-hour discussion was united on the principle that even in a national economic recession, Sioux Falls needs to press forward with infrastructure improvements, an event center, river corridor development, affordable housing and strategic planning for economic development.

They just can’t talk about Sioux Falls and growth without getting a plug in about the Event Center. Tell you what, the discussion should have centered around how all these city business ‘leaders’ intend to raise money for it – because you ain’t bilking the regular joe this time for your playground.

“Part of the reason for doing it like this is there is no place to hide. Accountability is here,” he said. “I’ve got my marching orders.”

I guess Greg’s father, General Jamison is back! Hey, Bob, stay retired, your old skool trash talk hasn’t been missed at the council meetings. I was puzzled by the ‘accountability’ statement though. Were you voting on something Greg that the public didn’t know about? Shooting the shit with a bunch of community business leaders is hardly ‘accountability’. Stepping out of votes when you have clear conflicts of interest is.

City Councilor Bob Litz said he was intrigued by a proposal to encourage real estate projects by incrementally stepping in real estate taxes on new buildings over five years, instead of imposing the full tax rate at once.

That’s a great idea Bob, make young families with new homes pay a majority of property taxes! They can afford it! And let the developers trickle down their savings to the rest of us! If I have to pay the full tax rate as a new homeowner, so do developers. I don’t get this giving tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our city in hopes they will trickle down low wages to us. I suppose that was discussed at the meeting to . . .

Curt Everson, president of the South Dakota Bankers Association, said that one way to increase capital for local investment is for government entities in the state to deposit their money in South Dakota banks.

I see at least someone with a brain showed up to the event.

Stormland TV also put in their 2 cents;

“We need to continue to grow in the city, we need to be visionary, and we have to have the leadership at the city level,” Jim Entenman, J&L Harley, said.

I couldn’t agree more Jim, I’m waiting for leadership that centers around citizens, not just businesses that sell overpriced American motorcycles. When the average Joe’s paycheck in Sioux Falls isn’t growing it’s kinda hard to milk him for more money to continue to grow the city. There has to be an alternative plan besides just raising retail taxes and user fees everytime we WANT something. It’s time Sioux Falls implements a corporate tax.

By the end of the session, everyone added ideas and voted on the top priorities for the City Council to consider. Those are:
1. Improving infrastructure
2. Working on the Greenway project and other events
3. Working on Economic Development
4. Creating Affordable Housing,
5. Easing regulatory restrictions
6. Creating a discretionary formula for the Real Estate Tax

As you can see, #6 is now a priority. I guess developers want to continue to see Sioux Falls grow, they just don’t want to pay their fair share of that growth. Go figure. The ironic part about the rest of the list is that those goals are the same as any other city our size that is growing. Once again, nothing original or progressive – just business as usual.

And the best idea from the session didn’t even make the list;

Some specific suggestions included having some private businesses take over some of the public works projects,

This is what other cities do instead of asking citizens to pay for ‘extras’ they get the business community to pony up – great idea.

So how much did the levee circus cost Sioux Falls taxpayers?

I guess it never really crossed my mind until yesterday when Quen Be De praised Northside Davey in the informational meeting, “I just think Dave has done a great job of working with our Washington delegation in getting us funds for our projects in Sioux Falls during his administration. I just hope the next three mayors can even come close to what he has been able to accomplish.” (paraphrasing). After I puked in my garbage can I started thinking about that statement. First off, we still are waiting for Lewis & Clark and railroad relocation funds from the Feds, something Dave has not accomplished. Also, they are still in discussions with the Corp of Engineers as to how much money we are gonna get for the levees. And lastly the only reason the levee bonds were called off was because FEMA said that people in the affected area don’t have to buy flood insurance. Go figure. This was all about saving business men and developers insurance premiums not about our safety, because if they were really concerned about our safety, the project would still be moving forward.

Business as usual in city hall.

But how much did this runaround cost us, even if we ditched the bonds? Last Fall councilor Staggers asked the city to give him a list of consulting fees paid out in 2009. He still has not received the list and they continue to deny (a sitting councilor) the numbers. They say he wants to use it for political reasons. My guess is that the amount is so high, that it will for sure become a political issue if it is released. If I had to ballpark it, I would guess the city probably spend close to $12-15 million a year on consulting fees, which includes legal advice.

This has gotten me wondering how much it cost taxpayers to explore the bonds to begin with (including flying a consultant in from Minneapolis in an attempt to scare off our tax initiative petition drive). Just because we only took out a portion of the bonds for the bridge, doesn’t mean they weren’t charging us by the hour. Ironically, the bridge could have been paid for out of the CIP budget, so no consulting fees or interest would have been paid at all.

Why all the secrecy around consulting fees? Because I have a feeling if we knew the real numbers we would have to clean our drawers. I hope the next three mayors aren’t even close to accomplishing what Munson has done, in fact, I hope they go in a completely different direction.

Community Forum to Discuss Local Economy

Civic and business leaders will meet in a community forum to generate ideas on how to sustain and possibly boost the local economy.
The meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on Saturday, March 21, 2009, in the Council Chambers of the Carnegie Town Hall, 235 W. 10th St.
Working together as a community will not only enable us to maintain what is working right for Sioux Falls, but will also allow us to jumpstart our local economy, said City Council Member Greg Jamison, who organized the meeting.
“As a City Council member I wanted to make sure we’re doing everything right to maintain our great community,” he said. “Sioux Falls is better off than a lot of other places in the country.”
Mayor Dave Munson will be present along with representatives from the City Council, city administration, the Sioux Falls Area Chamber of Commerce, the Sioux Falls Development Foundation, the Homebuilders Association of the Sioux Empire, the South Dakota Banking Association, Associated General Contractors of South Dakota, Realtor Association of the Sioux Empire Inc., Downtown Sioux Falls, and others.

The public and other business groups are invited to attend and participate in the discussion.
Contact City Councilor Greg Jamison at 310-1930 for more information.

I think a Forum like this is a great idea, in concept. I don’t have a problem with the groups that were invited but am wondering why community and grassroots groups were not invited to? Like Bread for the World, for example. As usual, our opinion does not count. Maybe they don’t want us doing ‘I told you so’ dance a couple of weeks after the meeting when we are right.
The businesses listed are the same group that lobbied for a second penny tax increase, that’s why I am suspicious. Anytime groups like this get together and share ideas it seems the average taxpayer gets screwed in the end. Their solution to every economic problem is tax us more so they can get freebies and handouts from the city. Most of them are self-serving, especially the Chamber and DT SF.
We’ll see what comes of it, but I will keep my expectations low. I’m just hoping that Carnegie doesn’t get flooded with too many bad ideas on Saturday, remember, real people die in floods and hopefully the bad ideas will too.
I will not be attending, because I will be working on my own economic recovery plan, working at my part-time job.

SF Citizens can no longer ask for advisory opinions

But candidates and possible candidates will be able to ask for legal opinions about possible conflicts they may personally have. (Click on Council meeting, Item #29)

I’m still on the fence about this whole thing. I think that the councilors are shooting themselves in the foot by approving this change. If I were a councilor I would much rather have someone ask an ‘opinion’ about me before I voted on an issue then file a ‘complaint’ after the vote happened. I would think that would be much more embarrassing to have a complaint filed and have major ramifications if the vote was close.

I do agree the advisory opinions should be confidential and not released to the public, just the party’s involved so that it does not become a political football. I think that is a very fair revision.

I guess now councilors can vote on whatever they want without the public questioning their conflicts or motives, they are only allowed to question themselves, that’s convenient, huh?

An Argus reporter wrote about the vote, but it is as clear as mud.

Project TRIM public meeting update

Have a tree trimming party and invite these guys

The longer I follow Sioux Falls city politics and government, the more I am convinced this city is run by ideologues. I got further proof of this last night when I attended an informational and Q & A meeting with the Sioux Falls Parks and Recreation forestry manager (Duane) about project TRIM.

City department heads have their own ideas on the city’s appearance and growth, and most citizens have different ideas, and they are not sitting at the table and ironing out those differences. That was quite apparent last night during the meeting.

The SF Parks and Rec wants us to trim our trees to their standards. I’ll give them credit, they do make some good arguments. They have some liability issues with delivery vehicles, fire and rescue and snowplows getting damaged by low hanging branches. They also have stated cases of people getting knocked in the head by a low hanging branch while walking at night (I could go into a tirade about that, but I will keep it to myself). Yes, these things should concern us, but that is what the city has insurance for.

I also agree that trees need to be trimmed and maintained on a regular basis. I trim my boulevard tree all summer long, because water sprouts grow out of it like a weed. But after receiving the project TRIM letter from the city, I will be forced to cut off two gigantic branches from the tree. Fine,  I’m okay with that. But I disagree with how the city is going about project TRIM. I believe there should be a concerted effort between the city and the property owners to get the trees trimmed. But the city sees it differently. Here’s some highlights from last night’s meeting which was attended by about 10-12 citizens, including a very animated school teacher (funny stuff).

 

          Project TRIM was initiated by the forestry manager on his own, Duane. He admitted to it last night. Duane said there was no formal vote by the council to approve the project because the ordinance already existed, which troubles me. I’m certain when the original council approved the ordinance they felt it would be enforced on a complaint basis only. Duane claims that a complaint basis wasn’t working because people felt like they were being picked on. So the solution is to pick on the entire district instead? This should have been thought out better and approved by the council and mayor by an ordinance vote so the citizens could have had some input. Letting one sole individual in a city department who isn’t even elected make this decision is bad public policy but normal operating procedure for Parks and Rec. Remember, their board members are volunteer political appointments by the mayor and not elected, they also have no accountability to the public.

          If the city charges you to trim your trees, it will cost $150 an hour. They justify this cost because you are paying for the P & R person to drive to your house and get his equipment ready. This ignited the school teacher. He basically said that he doesn’t get paid for ‘preparing lessons’ and ‘driving to school’ he gets paid to teach. He makes a good point. We already pay P & R wages, they should be charging us for the trimming only. They (The P & R director, Don, was there to) admitted they charge that much because they don’t want to be forced to do it, and they hope it will persuade people to do it themselves and comply. Makes sense, but it is still highway robbery just the same.

          One citizen complained that the code enforcement/project TRIM letter that is sent out is threatening. P & R admits this was done purposely to intimidate property owners into complying, or as they said “getting to the point.” Many complained this was poor customer service, to say the least. I complained that I don’t approve of ‘blanket code enforcement’ since they cannot be specific about what tree(s) need to be trimmed. In fact that was the biggest complaint from most everyone there. Citizens don’t have a way of measuring and understanding the compliance. I also felt this was forcing some citizens into hiring private contractors to do the work, and I think the city should not be in the business of promoting private contractors with my tax dollars.

          Unlike project NICE they will not come by and pickup your branches after you trim them. I said I don’t have a problem with trimming the branches myself but thought it would be a nice gesture (since I am a taxpayer) to have the city come by and pickup the branches like they do with project NICE. The response was “That’s a different project” Well duh! But why not do the same thing. The reply? “We tried it and it doesn’t work.” So I guess we just give up? I think it didn’t work because it was not done in connection with the letter. I think if they send out the letter with specifics on what tree(s) to trim and give a date they will be in your neighborhood to pick up the branches it would work. I also think they could ‘assist’ with any branches you had trouble trimming on your own. This would also give them an opportunity to inspect. Lots of birds killed with one stone (I know, tough to swallow because beaucracies do not work that way).

          Some asked why the city can’t just trim the trees while they are out inspecting. There excuse was there is not enough ‘Manpower’. I pointed out that they had plenty of ‘Manpower’ to inspect the neighborhoods, write down the addresses, get out and measure, compile the letters and money to mail them out, but not enough to actually trim the trees? No response. I failed to mention they also have the manpower and funds to cut down all the nice birches in Yankton trail park and replant and water all summer, but no time or money for the citizens.

          Some solutions that were offered was reorganizing P & R budget money to project TRIM and trying to get prison trustees to help out the fixed income and elderly. P & R’s solution? We’ll give you an extention.  Woo Hoo! It’s like the IRS giving an extention, at the end of the day, you still have to pay your taxes.

          One guy showed up defending the project. No surprise, I won’t mention his name, but he works for a certain downtown non-profit and often shows up to defend the city at various meetings. He suggested a neighborhood tree trimming party. Yeah, because nothing goes together like BBQ, beer and chainsaws. Hey, you go for it, don’t forget to wear your Jackyl t-shirt. Nobody responded to his idea, and he walked out. That’s usually the reaction when this guy opens his mouth at municipal meetings. He probably had to rush off and make it to another brown nosing session somewhere else.

Towards the end of the meeting though it seemed that the Don and Duane were willing to help out a little and agree to come out and mark trees that needed it if we call, so I haven’t lost hope yet.

What do you think? Should the city work together with the citizens on project TRIM since they are the ones complaining about liability? I think so. Pretty soon they will have us maintaining our own road in front of our house if this keeps up.