A TIF for a private restaurant that serves alcohol? Hmm . . .

by

So I stumbled upon item #42 at the city council meeting Tuesday night. They were amending the Sanford Sports Complex Development to include a full service restaurant (Document: snford). I was told this was coming, but am curious why this wasn’t included in the original plans. And of course, councilor Entenman excused himself from the vote without explaining why (as usual). He sits on the Sanford board of directors. Kenny Anderson asked if Sanford was going to sell the property to a private company for the restaurant. Director Cooper did not have an answer but the Sanford rep came up to answer the question. His response (paraphrasing), “Not sure, this area is still developing.”

So let me get this straight, you are asking for an amendment to have a full-service restaurant in the development, BUT you are not sure what that restaurant will be . . . yeah, sure, you betcha.

PROPOSED REGULATIONS/STANDARDS:

C. SUBAREA A.

It is the intent of Subarea A to be a planned medical/sports complex area including

the support services for the complex.

1. USES PERMITTED. A building or premises shall be permitted to be used for the

following purposes:

Recreational Complex

Office

Medical Office

Medical School

Medical Research

Medical Manufacturing

Day Care Center

Hotel/Motel

Full-Service Restaurant

Commercial Parking Lot or Parking Ramp

Communications Equipment

Warehouse

Retail

Retail Warehouse

Heliport

On-Sale Alcohol Establishment

Off-Sale

 

Posted in: Sanford Hospital, SF City Council, Sioux Falls

12 Thoughts on “A TIF for a private restaurant that serves alcohol? Hmm . . .”

  1. l3wis on July 4, 2012 at 9:39 pm said:

    Probably not related, but I found it strangely ironic that Applebees was taking back ownership of the Whisk & Chop liquor license at the same council meeting. Hmmm.

  2. GregN on July 5, 2012 at 12:26 am said:

    His answer was a classic non-answer. I wished he would have been pressed on it. I’m not sure how a restaurant, let alone one that serves alcohol, has anything to do with the mission of a health care non-profit. But I digress.
    I’m also pretty sure this entire complex would happen even without a TIF. So we’re rebating/giving up tax revenues back to a health care facility who apparently is not hurting for money, when it would have been built anyway. Does that sound logical?
    I’d like to have some tax relief myself. Oh, Councilor Staggers suggested that weeks ago with the extra unobligated revenues we had….and he pretty much got laughed out of the chamber by the rest of the council.

    And did I mention at the meeting on Tuesday first readings were held for various rate increases – water, sewer, garbage, etc?

  3. l3wis on July 5, 2012 at 12:31 am said:

    Shake my head, Greg.

  4. JTRAIN on July 5, 2012 at 9:27 am said:

    “I’m also pretty sure this entire complex would happen even without a TIF”…

    I have to disagree with you Greg, I don’t recall businesses clamoring to build and develop property directly adjacent to the SF Airport. Hence, the use of a TIF to encourage the development. I am not going to argue on the restaurant portion of the development, but I do believe the TIF was appropriate in this case.

  5. Craig on July 5, 2012 at 11:08 am said:

    I love this idea – because if you are going to expect me to stand around and watch youth sports, then you better be serving alcohol somewhere nearby.

  6. Pathloss on July 5, 2012 at 12:10 pm said:

    At least there’s steps into the river so we can back up and take a dump. Citizens can use the river and chemically treat the other toxins. Round about benefit but it can’t be as stupid as it looks.

  7. l3wis on July 5, 2012 at 2:12 pm said:

    Craig, I would have to agree.

  8. GregN on July 5, 2012 at 2:39 pm said:

    To JTRAIN, point taken, maybe it would not have happened without a TIF. I wouldn’t want to build near the airport either. I wouldn’t build an event center at West and Russell either…Seems to me though they would have built it somewhere else if they thought it made economic sense. Whether its there or somewhere else in town, it has the same net effect as far as economic impact. I would say in general the city needs to be really careful. The slippery slope I worry about with TIFs, meaning the standard required to grant a TIF doesn’t seem clear and seems to be slipping. I think there is a place for a TIF but I get the feeling our city leaders are starting to take the attitude that if a development is desirable, it should be TIFable.
    Craig and Pathloss’s comments were pretty awesome by the way!

  9. C on July 5, 2012 at 3:00 pm said:

    Has anyone seen this yet?
    http://www.siouxfalls.org/mayor/boards-commissions/planning-commission.aspx.

    Looks like they are asking how WE want their meetngs ran.

  10. Detroit Lewis on July 5, 2012 at 3:30 pm said:

    As I have posted about in the past, this TIF is precedent, there has never been a TIF like it before because of the private sector involved. The ED office is really testing the waters on this. I have often felt that if something is NEEDED in this community, the private sector will step up and see an opportunity to make money ON IT’S OWN.

    http://www.southdacola.com/blog/2012/05/the-precedent-of-the-sanford-sports-complex-tif/

  11. cr on July 6, 2012 at 9:06 am said:

    Combine Huether and Smith

    and greedy developers

    with the State removing the requirement of “blight” and you have…..

    the Perfect Storm!!

  12. l3wis on July 6, 2012 at 10:55 am said:

    But Sanford already has a ‘Storm Center’ at the KELO studios 🙂

Post Navigation