Annexation probably isn’t going to happen

If you have been watching the Annexation meetings, as I have, you will notice a change in direction. In the last meeting the Anti-Annexation peeps (most of the crowd) conducted their own in depth survey and study. Their conclusion? It would be way to expensive for individual homeowners to annex AND almost 90% of them are opposed.

As I pointed out in the past using Flopdation Park as an example, why doesn’t the city help pay for the majority of the cost for the annexation? If we are willing to handout welfare to corporations in annexation costs, why not to homeowners?

I agree with them, the only way I would support such an annexation is if the city paid for most of the upgrades. Otherwise it makes ZERO economic sense to the homeowners to annex. Which brings us to the next question. If the city wants the homeowners to pay most of the cost of the annexation, it must mean it is not economical for the city either to annex the property.

Watching the backlash play out over the past meetings, it’s pretty clear to me the annexation probably won’t happen unless it is forced by the city, and they could have one Hell of a fight on their hands . . . is it really worth it? Not really.



13 comments ↓

#1 Reliable Voter on 07.11.17 at 4:36 pm

It is my understanding any assessment for annexation can be spread out for a number of years.

I am not sympathetic to the narrow argument that it is not in the economic interest of residents of a non annexed property to be annexed. I could argue folks who don’t have kids don’t have an interest in paying property taxes to fund education. As for the argument residents are not using city services: if they drive to work on city streets that were built, maintained and plowed of snow, flush a toilet during work hours, avoided cholera at the water fountain, and drove to the grocery store on streets with traffic control of some sort before heading home, they benefited from city services and paying sales tax does not mean they adequately paid for those services. To paraphrase Senator Warren, “non annexed property owners did not build that”, they are using it without paying the same level of compensation that I do.

I don’t use the library, soccer fields, Great Bear, or visit Falls Parks. But I don’t begrudge the people of the community I choose to live in by arguing it is not my responsibility or in my economic interest to help pay for them.

#2 anonymous on 07.11.17 at 5:08 pm

Just wait until the attorneys start getting involved, and I’m not talking about the City’s attorneys!

#3 The D@ily Spin on 07.11.17 at 7:04 pm

This needs a sophisticated approach. Something the Huether administration is not capable of. Let it ride. The next mayor will be more practical and sensible. Can we pay for Huether extravagance and bond debt? As the new mayor, I’d properly audit eccentric Huether projects before I’d consider annexing responsibility for new unimproved county lots.

#4 scott on 07.11.17 at 7:57 pm

r.v., what about people who live in other towns, or farmwives who come to sioux falls to work, shop, or visit? how do you propose we charge them for driving on our streets, drinking our water, and flushing our toilets?

#5 LJL on 07.11.17 at 8:39 pm

I believe ome of them are paying $200 a month sewer bills. Good luck selling a house with that.

#6 Emoluments Clause on 07.11.17 at 11:43 pm

A vast percentage of those within the potential annexed areas knew this day would eventually come, when they built or bought their current homes. They are all like the woman from a prominent family who once built a home in the country on a sectional road, then complained years later when Walmart showed up next door….

Also, when you are more or less surrounded by the city, you are the not the same as a rural citizen coming to town to shop via the roads and infrastructure of the big city. At some point there must be boundaries or a beginning or an end, but to be surrounded and not understand the eventual reality is to ignore reality itself and mere common sense.

I am just shocked that the City is taking them all on at once. Would not incremental, or divide and conquer, be a smarter move? But then I began to think about the windfall for the City from having them all join the City over night at once, while sales tax receipts are slowing or potentially declining….. Who knows ?? 😉

#7 Bruce on 07.12.17 at 8:26 am

There are a lot of problems with this entire annexation discussion. The mayor’s uncontrolled boom town growth is the main issue. Many of these areas were so far out of town just a few short years ago when the building occurred.

First, Splitrock Heights was built up in the 1960-1970’s when Sioux Falls was quite a distance away with not intention of growing so far east. The city and school district of was so short sighted they allowed Brandon Schools to “gobble-up” territory during the statewide district reorganizations. Sioux Falls was NEVER going to grow SO far east. We are trying to deal with no grow governmental decisions of 50 years ago when Sioux Falls was less then half it’s current population.

Second, “the woman from a prominent family” built the house on the section road when the planned zoning for the corner was a church and small offices. It was 4 individuals who changed the zoning without it being properly approved by the planning commission or City Council. This change like several thousand others was slipped into the zoning map of Sioux Falls during the convoluted 2014 Shape Places zoning adoption. Technically the Walmart corner is still zoned “ag”. Through all the lawsuits there never was a formal vote to clarify the zoning and make it legal. Make note of your property’s zoning, is it what you think it is? When are you going to fix it?

The neighborhood in the southwest part of town the town is trying to force annexation. Developers have tried for years to force the residents out through what ever means necessary. It’s a choice spot. The land just to the east of it at Sertoma and W 41st is just as coveted. The water issues the area has now, never was before the building occurred to the south to the natural wetlands. The developers are dumping massive amounts of wetlands water into the non annexed land. The sewer bills being assessed are caused by this water dumping by the developers. It’s a way to force the neighborhood to sell and sell cheap.

So say what you might about these terrible people who want to live in the “country” not pay taxes, they likely over pay for what they have. We have to deal with the short sighted governmental thinking of 50 plus years ago. Do not put your 2017 values or frustrations ahead of the role history has played in this “problem”.

#8 Emoluments Clause on 07.12.17 at 10:23 am

But didn’t “the woman from a prominent family” have the zoning of the land her home was built on changed, prior to her build, from ag to residential? Not to mention that she built on a sectional road and just about every sectional road, near a metropolitan area, is merely the next “41st Street” in waiting.

#9 Reliable Voter on 07.12.17 at 10:51 am

Scott – they’re not living on non annexed property surrounded by annexed property.

A question for folks who built outside city limits because they wanted a more rural aesthetic (yeah, I know how that sounds), but wanted to be close enough to SF to take advantage of employment, medical services, entertainment, etc. Did it not occur to them the city would expand around them?

Brandon Valley did not gobble up land at the expense of SF. In the 1970s, the BV and SF Districts argued over the then NSP (now Xcel – Angus Anson Generation Plant) and which district could claim the tax revenue. The plant remained with the BV District, and in consideration of the City of Sioux Falls growing east, Brandon incorporated in 1973. And btw, Brandon residents don’t appreciate their town being referred to as a suburb.

IMHO, this annexation discussion is now about rooting for embarrassment and failure of city officials as much as it is about tax fairness, tax avoidance, and planning.

#10 Warren Phear on 07.12.17 at 2:19 pm

There has been a lot of really compelling input at all the annexation meetings to this point. Tena Heraldson has stated if the city stands to gain the most from annexation, then they need much more skin the game. Matt Metzger has suggested inviting appraisers to come in and give their opinion about the value of structures for pre- and post-annexation. Geoff Davis also stated as much. This last suggestion has been brought up in each of the last 4 meetings. The April meeting. The May meeting. The June meeting. The July meeting. The task force members have all stated this is a great idea. But to this point, I can see no indication that anything is being done about it.

To councilor Neitzerts credit, he is on record saying he sees no compelling reason to forcibly annex residents who neither need or want what the city is offering. All in all the task force members have been engaged in the process. Some much more than others.

Public input has been the most compelling reason for nixing annexation. Comments were made by John Brown as to why the City of Sioux Falls is growing, should it grow, or should the City restrict its growth (examples give were Portland, Oregon, [growth boundary] and Atlanta, Georgia, [no new subdivisions within the city]). Josie Alpers made several statements and observations on numerous topics including the environmental benefits of septic systems (as identified by the EPA), landscape, retaining walls, sprinkler systems, and roads that will be destroyed when infrastructure is installed and the cost of that to the property owner. She also mentioned the geothermal systems that exist on some properties, and completely destroyed mike coopers rationale concerning city water prices. It was an honor to shake her hand and tell her she is the new “Outlaw Josie Alpers”. Paul Klein complained about the more restrictive laws that will be enforced once annexation occurs. Problem is, public input is 15 minutes. 15 minutes after a deluge of more than 75 minutes for mike cooper and his entourage of city suits explain things like “triggers” for annexation.

Do I believe annexation is dead on arrival? No. This is something the mayor wants, and am sure is passed along to committee chair kiley at their weekly get togethers. I do believe annexation is off the table for Splitrock. Too much firepower. But they are only 243 properties of the 1065 under consideration.

One other thing. When I see Citizens like John Brown, and the Outlaw Josie Alpers come forward, I listen to what they say, because what they say is speaking truth to power, but at the same time I am watching mike cooper and the suits around him. This is what I see.
https://youtu.be/0xJz9dLyRI8

#11 Warren Phear on 07.12.17 at 9:09 pm

Why would Sioux Falls want to annex 62 islands, or better put, 1065 properties? There is a common expression: When someone (mike cooper) says, “It isn’t about the money,” it’s about the money. Think back to last month when cooper was laughed at and mocked for even making the ” it isn’t about the money” statement. If you read between the lines, you’ll find dollar signs all over it. When a city is faced with budgetary short falls, (slumping sales tax revenue) a city like Sioux Falls, in a state that permits forcible annexation has these choices: 1) reduce spending, 2) raise taxes, or 3) add taxable property to its boundaries. The first one is rarely considered; if something like indoor pools, indoor tennis, indoor cowboy concerts, admin buildings, are in the budget, it is almost unfailingly assumed to be needed or at least desirable. After all, when the piggy bank is over flowing, gifting the huether match pointe tennis complex $500,000 is chump change. The second choice is politically risky, especially in a state full of tea baggers. Because the third choice is available in SD, it may be possible to locate some “contiguous” low hanging fruit.

Bruce is right. So is John Brown. Urban sprawl is eating away at this city. Many of these 1065 properties would not even be considered for annexation, but for this factor. Tell me “reliable voter”, do you have any idea how much it is costing the city dwellers to get infrastructure to a outpost like foundation park, and the islands it has created because of such a venture? I don’t think you do. If you did, you would not be here spouting off.

#12 woodchuck do on 07.13.17 at 2:03 pm

not surrounded by sheit
almost 4 years
why punish yourselves
the flagellant becomes enured to the whip
or
loves being on a nuclear accelerated mouse wheel
shut it down
market ticker/zerohedge websites a good starting point

iaal obg
wake up people

#13 JAFO on 07.20.17 at 2:55 pm

I live in one of these areas under assessment review. I would like to get annexed into the city and there is alot more homeowners who do also, in fact 70% in our area do. The thing we have an issue with is that the city thinks they can bully us around and make us pay the costs to upgrade everything. This puts a burden on every homeowner that is not fair and the city knows it. If they would come in and do what is right, they would not get a fight on most of these areas. We are not looking for a free ride, but making the homeowner pay for all of this is criminal.