Approved Vision Fund changes create more gray area and confusion

RAPID CITY – At the end of the recent City Council meeting, an angry Ward 2 Alderman Bill Evans suggested altogether eliminating the tax that feeds the Vision Fund. This after changes to the Vision Fund ordinance were approved 8 to 2 with Evans and Ward 3 Alderman Greg Strommen voting no.

The handful of speakers were unanimously against the changes. Murray Lee from NDN Collective asked the Rapid City Council to delay the proposed Vision Fund ordinance changes. “I feel like not enough has been done to engage the community, especially for something like this. For me, finding out information about this was like chasing some sort of mystical creature.

Natalie Stites Means, executive director of COUP Council, said there are a lot of considerations to be made regarding the Vision Fund. “Inclusion of Native Americans in the decision-making process is very important. There is an issue of equity. We contribute. If you look at sales tax revenues, you see Tribal people all around this region contribute greatly to the sales tax. When you look at how Native organizations have benefited from the sales tax revenue in terms of Vision Fund and capital projects that have been funded, we see that Native American organizations, non-profit organizations, have not seen great equity in terms of allocations from the Vision Fund.” She said to change it at this time is such a radical proposal, especially the change to strike out the citizen committee without having more community outreach and engagement is a disservice to the community. “Why would you want to decrease citizen participation in city government and processes? Why? Why would you?”

Marcy Christensen Burdick asked the Council to vote no. She said after talking with numerous people about the issue she understood that a citizen committee and the city working on separate priority lists was found to be too cumbersome, creates too many requests, has drifted from its original intent, is diverting too much money to individual groups and generates lobbying pressure on the council. She said the changes in 2004 and 2012 were because citizens wanted more to say in the process. “What we have now is a process management problem not an ordinance one. The City’s comprehensive plan is supposed to be the guiding document for the council’s final decision. It should also help citizens understand needs versus wants and give the council clarity for its decisions.” She suggested simply listing what the current priorities under the comp plan are today or the mayor stating what he’s going to ask the city to study for its priorities could be achieved under the current ordinance as could the mayor’s ideas. She said to change now would remove the citizen input process that goes against what the public understood when it voted to use some Vision Fund money to expand the Civic Center. “The proposed change actually broadens language and creates more gray area and potential confusion or reallocation of monies down the road.” She pointed to Section B which says the Vision account can be used to fund programs, initiatives, loans, endowments, etcetera.”

Brett Gordon said a lot of “shalls” were changed to “mays” in the new ordinance. He called the language changes “insidious” and will allow for a slow migration of Vision Funds to go to enhancements that haven’t been clearly defined.

The new director of the Dahl, Jacqui Dietrich, noted that she is a steward of a multimillion-dollar investment from the Vision Fund that provides quality of life for Rapid City. “The rationale for the proposed changes appears to be based on input from the City Council rather than constituents. She called out the circular reasoning given at the last town hall meeting that council represent the people, as was stated at the town hall, and then it was stated that reverting to the original intent of the fund is justified because all the previous changes were made by the council and not by the public. She said they need to consider the impact on the non-profits that provide essential services. “They were dismissed at the previous town hall, as though that investment on behalf of the city was frivolous. But these services are often filling a need that the city does not wish to provide on its own.” She said these services are essential and currently potential solutions being created by the Black Hills Area Community Foundation and others to meet the needs. Until the viable solutions could be further explored, she asked for a no vote.

Evans agreed with Brett Gordon. “I think you’re exactly right. This is a way of creating a new way of slushing this money into accounts, so we have bills like $380-thousand dollars that Mr. Strommen doesn’t know what’s coming down the pike and all of a sudden, we start paying for things like that, and there’s no money left for anything else.”

Strommen moved to continue the issue for 60 days, which was seconded by Evans.

Ward 3 Alderman Kevin Maher said the vote was simply to remove one paragraph that requires the citizen committee. He said the last round of the Vision Fund Committee received 26 projects, a couple of which were thrown out immediately because they didn’t meet minimum qualifications. The Committee recommended funding 16 projects and only 8 were approved.

Josh Biberdorf representing Ward 1 said it’s been on the agenda for months. This isn’t voting on where the funds are going it’s just the ordinance.

Ward 2 Alderwoman Lindsey Seachris said this is a minor revision. She said it’s “more fair” because it isn’t pitting organizations against each other. “The use should be to economic development, civic improvements that benefit all community members, all of us.”

Ward 4 Alderman John Roberts moved to approve, seconded by Biberdorf.

Evans, who had some time remaining noted that in the five years he has served on council, there hasn’t been an issue before city council that had virtually 100-percent opposition from the citizens. “That tells me something funny is going on up here. I had a meeting with 200 people at West Hills, 100-percent opposition. I hear justification but the reality is nothing has ever been passed without the support of citizens in this community before. This will be a first.” Evans said even if he firmly believed it was a good change, with this much opposition from the citizenry, you don’t do it. You are not representing the people who elected you.

Strommen said important words have been stricken from the ordinance. “That’s the very heart of it. This isn’t some insignificant change. This eliminates the citizen committee. I agree with Mr. Gordon there is a likelihood that this will continue to get phased out if we approve this ordinance change. It basically guts the Vision Fund. The other safeguard that has been stricken says that the plan will be reviewed annually at a public hearing.”

Natalie Stites Means told Native Sun News that the vote was predictable. “I think there are a lot more interests other than the public interest involved in this decision-making.” She said that two council members tried to minimize the change in the ordinance by saying that it was merely about the citizen committee removal. “But that’s not true. The purpose of the Vision Fund is now being put into statute and very much limiting it to infrastructure, buildings and other stuff. It sounds like a handoff to for profit businesses here.”

She thanked Evans and Strommen for their comments.

(Contact Marnie Cook at cookm8715@gmail.com)

The post Approved Vision Fund changes create more gray area and confusion first appeared on Native Sun News Today.

Visit Original Source