Entries Tagged 'Annexation' ↓

Full House at Sioux Falls Annexation meeting

In the main chambers and overflow room at Carnegie right now.

Councilor Stehly will be handing out Fliers today!

Can you protest an Annexation in Sioux Falls?

Citizens asked at the first annexation meeting how they could try to protest or stay out if the city tried to forcibly annex them in.  A reader also asks this on your blog. Here is the answer Councilor Neitzert I was able to get.
If a landowner or group of them object to a FORCED annexation (city initiated) they have a few legal options (three specifically below).
1.  Put the resolution of annexation passed by the city council on the ballot.  This would be very similar to what happened with Walmart, Shape Places, and almost with the administration building.  The only difference is the 5% of registered voters who have to sign the petition are the sum of all of those in Sioux Falls plus all of those in the newly annexed area, so if there were 120,000 registered Sioux Falls voters, and 100 registered voters in a newly annexed area, there would need to be 5% of 120,100 registered voter signatures on a petition collected by 20 days after publication of the resolution.  That would put the question on the ballot and there would have to be an election.  That process is explained here:
SDCL 9-4-4.5.   Petition for submission of annexation resolution to voters. The required number of voters residing in the combined area of the municipality and special annexation precinct may file within twenty days after the publication of the annexation resolution a petition with the municipal finance officer, requiring the submission of the annexation resolution to a vote of the voters of the combined area of the municipality and special annexation precinct for its rejection or approval.
SDCL 9-4-4.6.   Contents of referendum petition–Signatures–Verification. The petition shall contain the title of the resolution or the subject of the resolution and the date of its passage. The petition shall be signed by at least five percent of the registered voters residing in the combined area of the municipality and the special annexation precinct established pursuant to § 9-4-4.8. The percentage shall be based on the number of voters in the municipality at the last preceding general election. Each voter shall add to the voter’s signature the voter’s place of residence, including street and house number, if any, and the date of signing. The referendum petition shall be verified in the same manner as a petition to initiate a law except that the person verifying shall state that each person signing the petition is a resident and registered voter of the municipality or special annexation precinct. No signature on the petition is valid if signed more than six months prior to the filing of the petition.
 
2.  After a resolution to annex goes into effect, and a group is now IN the city, they can attempt to petition OUT.  Note that this is NOT the same as a zoning protest petition where a group of landowners can force the council to revote on the same ordinance (like the Brett apartment rezone).  This is after the original resolution has passed and gone into effect.  If there were 75% of landowners of equity and registered voters of a block that was annexed, they can force the council to vote on a resolution to exclude (remove) them from the city.  That vote is a simple majority vote of the council.  If the council does not vote to remove them from the city, state law says they can bring that to circuit court (see SDCL 9-4-8 and 9-4-9 below).  Another way to take a group out of the city is by a two-thirds vote of the city council, which would be unlikely if they had just forcibly annexed the same group.
 
SDCL 9-4-6. Exclusion of territory from municipality on petition or by vote of governing body
Upon a two-thirds vote of the governing body, or on petition in writing signed by not less than three-fourths of the legal voters and by the owners of not less than three-fourths in value of the property in any territory within any municipality being upon the border thereof, the governing body may by resolution exclude the territory from the municipality. However, if all the land sought to be excluded is more than one-half mile from any platted portion of the municipality, the petition must be signed by the owner only.
 
SDCL 9-4-7. Publication of petition for exclusion of territory
No final action shall be taken by the governing body upon any petition presented in pursuance of the provisions of § 9-4-6 until notice of the presentation of such petition has been given by the petitioners by publication at least once each week for two successive weeks.
 
 
SDCL 9-4-8. Petition to circuit court for exclusion of territory after refusal by governing body
Upon the failure of the governing body to grant the request contained in a petition presented in accordance with the provisions of §§ 9-4-6 and 9-4-7, for thirty days after the last publication of the notice or upon a refusal to grant such request, the petitioners may present their petition to the circuit court of the county in which such municipality or the greater portion of it is situated, by filing such petition with the clerk of courts.
 
SDCL 9-4-9. Service of notice of petition to circuit court–Hearing at term or in vacation
Notice of filing pursuant to § 9-4-8 shall be served by the petitioners upon the mayor or president of the Board of Trustees, as the case may be, together with a notice of the time and place when and where a hearing will be had upon such petition, at least ten days before the date of such hearing.
The hearing on the petition may be had by the court at a regular or special term or in vacation.
 
SDCL 9-4-10. Court order for exclusion of territory–Dismissal of petition
If upon the hearing the court shall find that the request of the petitioners ought to be granted and can be granted without injustice to the inhabitants or persons interested, the court shall so order.  If the court finds against the petitioners, the petition shall be dismissed at the cost of the petitioners.
3.  Some other sort of action in circuit court objecting to some legal aspect of the forced annexation or the process in which it was done.

Baby Monitor Annexation Sioux Falls, 4/11/2017

Once again our esteemed Sioux Falls city administrators have bungled an event. If da mayor ain’t there, the kids even screw up the use of the only recording device they are allowed to play with, the city’s baby monitor. Do they think we will not notice their lack of transparency? How does da mayor think it’s alright to take away property rights as long as they do it with a baby monitor?

We have a prime example of why we bring our Handicams to Sioux Falls city meetings. If the administration isn’t physically assaulting citizens who attend meetings they are doing it to their sensibilities. This meeting was called after Council members started rejecting the illegal manner the Sioux Falls Planning and Zoning department was pushing through annexations.

• First the meeting was held at 2:00pm on a Tuesday when citizens can’t leave work.

• Next the meeting is planned for the downtown main library where everyone who attends has to pay about $1.50 in parking meter fees, and $10 for a ticket.

• While they were at it, they originally set up a room for 25 people, as if they could hold it in secrecy or in a room so small the peeps would just leave when they couldn’t get in.

• Who on God’s green earth thought this was a good idea, to use the room without microphones and the overhead speaker system? It is one of the worst rooms to hear anything in.

• To make the event very transparent, da mayor of all mayors needed the CityLink cameras for a retirement BFF ceremony in City Hall, so the kids who put on this meeting got only one baby monitor to record the event.

You can kind of guess by now, we showed up and so did about 200 more because Councilor Theresa Stehly let those affected by the 60+ annexation issues know the meetings were happening. The room had to be increased and it was still standing room only with people outside the door trying to get in.

In the end, the baby monitor failed just like the event planners. This is the only full recording of the event. Cameraman Bruce thanks the Sioux Falls citizens who showed up with their own recorders and caught the action he was not able to. The April 11, 2017 library meeting was a joke in so many ways but the citizens were there in such force the powers that pretend to be, had to pay attention.

Theresa Stehly the citizens thank you for your hard work. If not for your hard work talking to people ahead of time, this meeting would have been a sham like so many others.

UPDATE: City ‘audio’ records an annexation meeting with what looks like a baby monitor

UPDATE: Word has it that the audio recording the city attempted failed on Tuesday (We hope to have our version of the meeting up soon). I guess this has prompted the city to move the meetings not only to 5:30 at night, but to Carnegie so they can be live stream recorded and watched from home in real time. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 26.

What I found ironic was this very large public meeting was being recorded with this rinky-dink device while at the very exact time, City Link had a crew over at City Hall recording the Fire Chief’s announcement of his new golden parachute job . . . oh and retirement, filled with lots of hugs from the mayor, apparently his BFF for over 20 years. Remember, when it come to City Link and media, Mayor’s propaganda is 1st priority.

Now this is transparency folks. With several city directors and task force members speaking as well as almost 200 people from the public, the city’s idea of transparency is a simple audio recording that they will ‘post to the internet’.

Funny, we can spend over $400 an episode to watch the Mayor take questions from HS kids during a ‘Shut up and Listen’ episode, but this is what we are reduced to for a public meeting of utmost importance.

Even councilor Neitzert seems to be amused by this advanced technology.

Annexation Task Force meetings set

The task force created to establish criteria to use with any future City-initiated annexation in Sioux Falls has set its meeting schedule.

The task force includes three City Council members as well as four members of the community who are potentially impacted by proposed annexations. City employees from Planning, Project Management, Engineering, the City Attorney’s Office, and Finance will provide information and be resources for the task force members. The task force will convene for five sessions with a goal of developing recommendations that will provide a consistent way forward for future annexations. The public is welcome to attend.

The meetings will take place from 2 to 3:30 p.m. in Meeting Room B of the Downtown Library, 200 North Dakota Avenue, on the following dates:
• Tuesday, April 11, 2017
• Tuesday, April 25, 2017
• Tuesday, May 9, 2017
• Tuesday, May 23, 2017
• A final meeting date that will be determined by the task force

“Since Sioux Falls was founded more than 130 years ago, all growth has occurred through the process of annexation. It is a rather simple process when a property owner has an interest in being annexed but can quickly turn complex when the city grows into areas where the property owner is not interested in annexation. Additional challenges occur when the city boundary begins to surround a large, rural subdivision. In a growing city like ours, we need a consistent process to move forward with needed annexations,” says Mike Cooper, Director of Planning and Building Services.

The task force will be given information on the many state laws regarding annexations, some historical information to illustrate how annexations have occurred in the past, an update on the current Engineering Design Standards, and discuss the financial impact of an annexation on both the property owner and the City, along with other topics. The group will then make recommendations regarding how to move forward with annexations in the future.

As updates and more information become available, it will be posted at www.siouxfalls.org/annexation.

The City of Sioux Falls Planning Office has formed a Task Force to address various issues surrounding annexation. When the city’s boundaries begin to engulf a property that is not annexed, and does not plan to annex, there are challenges that result from that.

The goal of the Annexation Task Force is to make recommendations regarding the following questions.

  • Under what circumstances should the City move forward with a city-initiated annexation?
  • What criteria will be used to prioritize the annexation of those properties deemed to be annexed under the city-initiated process?
  • Will the City move forward with a petitioned annexation request if the annexation requested creates a pocket of unannexed land within the city limits?
  • What infrastructure design standards will be required as annexation occurs?
  • What financial contribution will the city make towards any required infrastructure improvements due to a city-initiated annexation?

ANNEXATION TASK FORCE MEMBERS

Councilor Rick Kiley
Councilor Marshall Selberg
Councilor Greg Neitzert
Matt Metzger – Citizen of Lincoln County
Tena Haraldson – Citizen of Sioux Falls
Greg Starnes – Citizen of Sioux Falls
Jeff Davis – Citizen of Minnehaha County
Support/Resource members:
Mike Cooper, Director of Planning and Building Services
Albert Schmidt, Urban Planner
Debra Gaikowski, Project Manager
Chad Huwe, City Engineer
Tracy Turbak, Director of Finance
Danny Brown, City Attorney

ANNEXATION TASK FORCE MEETING TOPICS

Topic #1 – Annexation law and the requirements and limitations imposed by those laws.
Topic #2 – The history of city-initiated annexations including the design standards the property owners were held to.
Topic #3 – A review of all unannexed property within the city that is currently completely surround by annexed land and the amount of development that exists on the surrounding land.
Topic #4 – A review of all recently completed CIP projects or CIP projects programmed in the near future that are adjacent to unannexed property or directly impact unannexed property.
Topic #5 – Assessment law, the rights of the city, and the rights of the property owners.
Topic #6 – The financial impact of annexation on a property owner including property tax changes, financial benefits, and the cost of infrastructure improvements.
Topic #7 – The impact on the property owners and the community if Engineering Design Standards are lowered in order in an effort to get unannexed property annexed. Review current ADA requirements.
Topic #8 – The impact on development if limitations are imposed on property owners wanting to annex land but a pocket of unannexed property is created by that annexation. Examples to be provided.
Topic #9 – How often should the established annexation criteria be reevaluated and by whom?
Topic #10 – Notification and Communication Process

Cameraman Bruce’s thoughts on Annexation

What a bunch of crap, C-R-A-P. Our esteemed soon to be retired Sioux Falls City Council Chair has said in the Argus Leader article “Do we want a lot of areas that look like Old Orchard?” Oh my gawd, how ignorant can people be?

There are several neighborhoods in Sioux Falls without curb, gutter and sidewalks including my neighborhood. Some specifically move to them because they have NO curb, gutter, storm sewer and sidewalks. There is a function and charm to neighborhoods without out our outdated curb style designed so badly it breaks snowplows if the drivers are not trained properly. To the people who think all houses must be painted brown based colors like our City Council Chair prefers with the greenest golf course grass and big brick mailboxes, too bad, we have freedom of choice.

Not all houses and yards have to look like your golf course duplex maintained by a landscaping company for their efficiency. Old Orchard, Split Rock Heights, Hall’s Addition and more are neighborhoods with a flavor the owner residents want to retain. Hall’s addition and Old Orchard are long established formerly rural neighborhoods with permanent agreements with the city of Sioux Falls to never be forced to have curbs, sidewalks or storm sewers. Those of us who live in the areas know there is never a need and in the late 1980’s attorney A.J. Swanson fought for the right to keep them out forever. An additional negotiated pieces for Hall’s Addition is 20 mph streets and their own water wells – FOREVER. Did you know Old Orchard has the right to keep horses?

There are many things to be negotiated in the annexation fight. The city staff and a few members of the Council are full of themselves in these issues.

Bruce Danielson

The Metzger Annexation will probably be withdrawn

Last night during public input (FF: 39:20), Matt Metzger attended the city council meeting and spoke about his disdain over being thrown under the bus to the media by Planning Department employee, Albert Schmidt. He said, it made him look like a freeloader for not paying city property taxes. But he explained that on 3 sides of his property, none of the land has been platted. He also said he pays for city water, and that Lincoln County plows his roads.

His testimony must have struck a nerve with someone because the planning department announced today that they will request a withdrawal of the Metzger annexation during the Jan. 3, 2017 regular meeting.