Entries Tagged 'Property Taxes' ↓
December 5th, 2013 — Minnehaha County, Property Taxes, Taxes
Interesting that we were just talking about this the other day on the blog, and our ever increasing property taxes. But this puts a new twist on it;
A lawsuit rising from a disputed property tax assessment involving Minnehaha County could set a troublesome precedent, county officials say.
Hutchinson Technology is suing the county, claiming the sale of a 300,000-square foot building to Sanford Health in 2009 showed the county greatly overvalued the building for tax purposes. The site at 2301 E. 60th St. had been the Hutchinson Technology campus. Sanford acquired it to be its research headquarters.
The most recent assessed valuation before the sale was $18.6 million. But Hutchinson Technology sold the site to Sanford for $12 million. Now Hutchinson Technology is challenging tax assessments from as far back as 2005 and possibly to 2001, according to Kersten Kappmeyer, Minnehaha County state’s attorney chief civil deputy.
Make no mistake, I have often thought state and local governments are greedy when it comes to taxing individuals, nickel and diming us on higher utility rates and fees. Continuing opt-outs for crime prevention and punishment (when changing state laws for non-violent drug offenders would fix the problem) while handing out TIF’s to the big boys and not taxing profits of corporations.
If the County loses this lawsuit, the ripple affect could be devastating, for their coffers anyway.
April 18th, 2013 — Property Taxes, SF School District
As I was reading this article about teacher raises (which I fully support) something else in the article concerned me;
The school district can afford the pay hike because it has spent less than it planned to for years and has an oversized reserve fund. Their 2013-14 budget alone looks to spend $6.6 million of their $22 million in general fund reserves.
$22 Million in Reserve Funds! As our property taxes continue to increase why does the school district have so much in reserves, when . . .
1) They haven’t discussed substitute teacher pay increases.
2) The city continues to give out property tax breaks in the form of TIF’s to private developers.
3) There has never been a discussion about building a public indoor pool at one of the High Schools.
It seems the school district is swimming in money, so why do my taxes continue to go up?
January 13th, 2013 — County Commission, Minnehaha County, Property Taxes
I would like to personally thank the Minnehaha County Commission for raising my property taxes almost $40 a year so they can have a raise (for an elected, part-time position they CHOSE to run for). Rat Finks!
March 9th, 2012 — Property Taxes, Sanford Hospital, Sioux Falls, Taxes
I found these two items interesting on the Planning Commission Agenda from Wednesday. Good luck watching the video though, I have noticed that it takes a few days for the Planning Commission Meetings to be posted on SIRE. Not sure why? Maybe it has something to do with Personnel matters
August 4th, 2009 — economy, Property Taxes, SF City Council, Sioux Falls
I had to read this editorial twice to make sure, they were saying what I thought they were. I’m shocked!
The allowance to raise property taxes by 3 percent or the rate of inflation each year is just that. An allowance.
It’s not an automatic function that city officials should customarily build into each year’s budget.
Yes, but that is the nature of socialistic, tax and spend, big government Republicans, they don’t care if the average Joe can make ends meet, they only care about their ‘ends’ and ‘behinds’.
As residents continue recovering from the economic downturn, a respite from property tax increases undoubtedly would be well timed.
Indeed, there are times when even in the face of economic downturns it makes sense to spend in ways that take advantage of unique opportunities – such as issuing needed bonds when interest rates are low.
It’s hard to see how automatically raising property taxes fits into this category, though.
Actually, it’s the exact opposite. The 2010 budget offers a unique chance to hold the line on property tax increases.
City officials need to offer a better reason than they’ve stated why Sioux Falls should pass on this opportunity.
You mean, you agree with Staggers for once? Get out!
July 29th, 2009 — Property Taxes, Sioux Falls
While the city and county are considering property tax increases on the rest of us, developers are pushing for a huge tax cut incentive;
Sioux Falls Mayor Dave Munson’s budget for next year includes a 2.4 percent property tax increase for city residents, designed to raise almost $960,000.
Developers want the city to give them a significant tax cut in the first 5 years they develop new property;
Those officials have proposed a formula that would give builders a two-year window to start projects that would qualify for a lower property tax bill. The program would apply to some commercial, multifamily housing and industrial projects. It wouldn’t apply to single-family residences because state law does not permit local governments to offer tax breaks for that type of construction.
A qualifying project would pay 20 percent of the taxes in its first year after completion. The bill would rise 20 percent each year thereafter until it hit 100 percent in the fifth year.
While our city leaders(?) are lauding a property tax increase as something we NEED to do (actually we don’t) the special interests that fund their campaigns are asking for a handout. I might be for the plan if Sioux Falls was behind on commercial development, but we are not, in fact their is tons of office space available for lease right now, just drive around and count the signs. I have often said that DEMAND drives development, not tax cuts. This whole idea was cooked up by Clayton Jamison who co-owns his development company with his father former concilor Bob ‘General’ Jamison and his brother current councilor Gregg Jamison;
Industry officials are billing it as a mini economic stimulus that could save jobs. Developer Clayton Jamison, who is among those pitching the plan, said there have been widespread layoffs in the industry. For those still employed, hours and overtime have been slashed, adding burdens to families.
Hey, Clayton, every industry is hurting in Sioux Falls. Why not give the working stiffs tax cuts instead of yourself? The worst part about the proposal is that his brother Gregg helped cook this up. Not only should Gregg not be voting on the proposal, he shouldn’t even be discussing it in his official position. It is a huge, huge, conflict of interest, considering Gregg is partners with his brother in the business, which ironically is behind on property taxes on his new developments. Is their proposal a plan to help spur development or is it a plan to help them out personally? I think the answer is pretty freaking obvious.
Steve Van Buskirk of Van Buskirk Cos. said the tax savings could be enough to persuade some businesses to start projects now rather than wait.
Hey, Steve, how about leasing the space you have available right now instead of building new space. I think Mike Cooper and Vernon Brown sum it up best;
“We don’t really have any suitable data to understand what impact this may or may not have,” Cooper said.
Officials also wonder whether the program would contribute to a glut of open commercial and office space in Sioux Falls.
“Does it compound the problem?” Councilor Vernon Brown asked.
During the years a property receives tax breaks, the difference between what it pays and what it should have paid is spread among existing taxpayers, said Ken McFarland, administrative assistant to the Minnehaha County Commission.
“In other words,” Brown asked, “property owners would subsidize this tax break?”
“Basically,” McFarland responded.
I hope the city council is least smart enough to not let this proposal see the light of day at a council meeting. This proposal should be shot down before it even gets voted on – and councilor Jamison needs to excuse himself from the negotiations, because trust me, if he doesn’t he will find out what a real ethics complaint is.