During the city council informational meeting last night (sorry for the jacked up link, but the city has been busy trying to make it harder to access the videos and agendas-WHO USES DOUBLE SCROLL BARS!?) councilor Jensen was addressing the proposed mixed use ordinance.

The point of the new ordinance is to help encourage mixed use housing and retail in higher density areas. Something that is long overdue.

Councilor Merkouris suggested during the item discussion that maybe there should be more requirements when it comes to the type of varied construction and units a developer builds.

Councilor Soehl protested based purely on citizens griping to him about the transition between single family and multi-family and having to be the one to make the decision.

Well after almost 8 years on the city council, Mr. Soehl has finally figured out he is part of the policy body of city government and sometimes has to make decisions that affect real people’s lives. Who knew?

His partner in crime and fellow lazy leadership companion, Alex Jensen had an even better solution, let the developers determine zoning and development.

After I stopped laughing at the initial statements, I realized as Alex continued to stammer and mumble he was dead serious. He feels the development community should just determine long term growth and housing.

Well guess what Alex, we have allowed this to happen over the past 30 years and what it has created is a cottage industry of developers building McMansions and condos (with TIF funded parking ramps attached) while ignoring our workforce and affordable housing crunch in Sioux Falls. We let the industry fart around long enough it is time we changed ordinances to encourage this kind of growth instead.

Of course, I don’t expect any major changes during the cruise control administration. They will probably just take the initial proposal, water it down and have have the Pumpkin Policy Advisor re-write it.

The developers run the city and at least two city councilors proved it in their testimonies.

ADMINISTRATION CRONIES STOPPED SHOWING UP FOR CONSENT AGENDA QUESTIONING

During the meeting last night councilor Starr asked for an item to be removed from the consent agenda. He also followed protocol and informed the department within the city the day before that he had questions about the item. No one showed up to answer the questions. So now the administration isn’t even bothering to show up to council meetings?

COUNCIL STRUGGLING WITH EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT

During last week’s operations committee meeting the council discussed how to hire and maintain city council employees. After listening to the discussion it makes you wonder who has been managing the city council employees? Certainly not the council or leadership. My suggestion all along was to bump up the pay a little to the operations manager and make him king sh!t of the council employees. If there is any problems he can’t deal with he can bring those to the council in an executive session. I am not sure why the council likes to make things so complicated? I think they only have 5-6 full-time employees, that’s less then a food truck.

MAYOR TENHAKEN ASKING FOR REGISTRATION ‘AGAIN’ FOR STATE OF THE CITY ADDRESS

I’m still baffled why the Mayor thinks he can ask for registration of a public event;

Mayor Paul TenHaken will deliver the 2023 State of the City address on Monday, April 17 at the Sioux Falls Convention Center. Doors open at 7:30 a.m. that day. This year’s event will feature a special panel discussion on the Riverline District.

The event is free and open to the public. Advance registration is requested by April 7 because breakfast will be served. Please note that seating is limited, but the address will be available to view via livestream on the City of Sioux Falls’ Facebook page.

First off, you don’t need to register for a public event, this is just a way to collect data on who may be attending and secondly, who is paying for the breakfast?

It seems they will also be shoving the Riverline District down our throats whether we like it or not, even recruiting Jodi to write a column about the possibilities;

Based on the comments, there is a clear reluctance from many who participated in this exercise to support a large-scale publicly funded sports venue. To be clear, I did not read all the comments and I have not seen the results of the survey that went with this, which might give a broader look at the sentiment. But each time I saw someone mention a stadium, the number of negative reactions far exceeded the number of positives.

Besides the very glaring and obvious sentiment taxpayers don’t want us to invest in a baseball stadium there are other issues that NO one wants to talk about;

• Besides infrastructure (like roads, utilities and green space) citizen taxpayers should not be involved in any type of purchase agreement with this land. We will take care of the infrastructure, let the developers take care of the investment

• Housing will be a challenge. Unless there is some long term plan to create a quiet zone in the area or remove the tracks all together, it will be a hard sell putting apartments next to the busiest train line downtown.

• Drake Springs limits permanent development. One of the main reasons a stadium or other outdoor venue is being pushed is because where the Drake Springs lie would cause water issues with any permanent structure. In other words because of the natural springs in a large part of this area, green space will be the ONLY option.

I’m not sure why the mayor is pushing this development so hard, but if I had to guess it is because some of his friends involved with this are looking to pad their pockets on the backs of taxpayers because that is how it is done in Sioux Falls. Play ball!

Patrick Lalley of Siouxfallslive.com wrote an interesting article about how the city council doesn’t have any staff advocates, I’m not sure that is the problem;

The council has some research and legislative assistance. They may need more of an ombudsperson who advocates on their behalf.

The city council has three full-time clerks, an operations manager and and legislative person, I am not sure they need more (I have even suggested they cut back to 2 clerks and an operations person).

The problem is council vice-chair Jensen and chair Soehl who were both re-elected by their peers last year to the same positions. Their main responsibility is to be the connection between the mayor’s office and the council, not only negotiating with the administration but informing the rest of the council what is in the pipeline.

In fact we still have gotten NO reason why Shana Nelson left as Audit Manager (she was appointed in a public meeting) and joined the administration as a Housing Compliance Manager (which garnered her a $7,000 raise).

Not only has council leadership failed the council when it comes to transparency but they have failed the constituents also.

I would suggest the rest of the city council hold a special election and appoint Starr as chair and Merkouris as vice-chair and get some adults in those seats.

Yes, that is the daily rent, for the month it will cost you $5,950. I purchased my home 20 years ago, before I bought the house the rent I paid for a nice 1-bedroom behind U-Haul in Pettigrew Heights was $350 a month which included gas and garbage service. For $5,950 a month you could pay a mortgage on a 1 million dollar home. You can rent a decent hotel room in Sioux Falls for about $100 a night. Heck even Hotel Phillips only 2 blocks from this loft charges between $140-$220 a night. An VRBO or Air BNB is even cheaper. This 3 bedroom short term rental in McKennan Park will run you about $162 a night. Even if you had 3 people renting the loft, they would still have to pay $2,000 a month in rent. In fact what you would pay for rent in a year for this place ($70K+) was more then the original purchase price of my home.

Normally I wouldn’t give two rips about what a wealthy property owner/developer in DTSF charges for rent, I’m a free market person and if they can get that kind of ‘rent’ money, good for you. Where I take issue is that this building received a facade easement grant* (basically the city gives private developers money to fix up their historical facades with little oversight). I asked a councilor recently if the half-Inch faux brick that they glued on the front of Lucky’s facade was considered historic? Faux brick has been a trend lately, but I still think it looks fake. I thought one of the requirements of historic restoration was for it to be actually historic, you know, like the fiberglass bulstrades on the Pavilion’s new roof.

Besides the atrocious monthly rent, this really doesn’t make the city look very good when they are handing out TIFs for condo parking ramps and facade grants DTSF but on the other hand are promoting(?) affordable and accessible housing.

*The facade easement program was mysteriously and suddenly re-instated by the urging of Central District Councilor Curt Soehl. No surprise the 1st recipients for the grants were the former campaign treasurer for Soehl (for the 9th and Grange coffee shop that he is restoring) and the investment group that owns the Lucky’s loft who has given thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to Mayor TenHaken and his various supported candidates. The program is nothing but a pay to play payback to these campaign contributors. The program was originally ended because there really is NO need for taxpayers to be propping up these private developers.

The city really needs to get out of the wealthy developer welfare program business and start incentivizing affordable housing DTSF with programs that help build housing density while focusing on the individual property and small rental owners. Instead the city’s solution is to build slab on grade tract homes in a cornfield in Southern Brandon. Even a chicken playing tic-tac-toe is smarter than that.

UPDATE: In 2017 Rapid City used a very small TIF to support affordable housing (H/T Mike Zitterich). It was 5 years ago, but for a $26,500 TIF the developer was able to build 5 Town Homes – the cheapest with the price tag of $109K. Even with inflationary adjustments, that same place would only be about $130-150K today. It was built on a blighted empty lot.

We could legally do this in the core of the city, and we could do it for multiple properties.

Here is a video of the project;

Imagine my surprise when I read this article this morning;

Members of the Sioux Falls City Council have begun conversations with the city attorney’s office about drafting an ordinance that could include prohibiting any new listing in residential-zoned neighborhoods. And that would all but eliminate the use of Airbnb and VRBO in Sioux Falls, where nearly every property listed on those sites now is located.

Right now, short-term rentals are subject to few regulations. State statute requires that rentals where occupants stay for fewer than 28 nights at a time remit sales tax. The city of Sioux Falls does not regulate short-term rentals. And at the city level, there’s almost no oversight from municipal government.

For a time, under Mayor Mike Huether, the city planning office held that Airbnb-listed properties fell under the Sioux Falls bed and breakfast ordinances, which required residential properties to meet minimum parking standards. But that interpretation on short-term rentals did not come with any enforcement. And since Mayor Paul TenHaken’s administration took over, the city has shifted to a position that existing ordinances are silent on short-term rentals listed on online platforms like Airbnb, VRBO, Furnished Finder and Guestly.

I find how this is evolving to be interesting considering former city councilor Erickson has a pretty good family business with short-term rentals and was rumored to convince former Mayor Huether to lift the restrictions on them, which he did, I believe through executive order or simply instructing the health department to NOT inspect them anymore.

Rumors aside, I do agree Schmidt;

Rather than overhauling the city’s rental ordinances, Sioux Falls Experience Director Teri Schmidt said the council could enact changes that level the playing field between short-term rentals and the traditional lodging industry.

Schmidt’s convention and visitors bureau organization is funded by a $2 fee paid by hotel and motel guests visiting the city, which is used to lure potential tourists to the area by marketing Sioux Falls attractions.

Those efforts drive demand for lodging in the city, and Schmidt says that includes short-term rentals. But the short-term rentals are not subject to the $2 fee, therefore not directly contributing to Sioux Falls’ tourism industry, she said.

“There is no doubt that with the increase in the number of Airbnbs in South Dakota, hotels are losing that business. Otherwise, they’d have stayed in a hotel,” Schmidt said. “They need to pay their fair share into the (business improvement district).”

Soehl said a formal proposal likely won’t come forward until spring.

Not only should the short term rentals pay a BID tax, they should also be registered with the city as short-term rentals AND be subject to at least ONE surprise inspection per year by the health department.

I have used VRBO in the past and there is a screening process, that is actually way more restrictive than using a hotel. I think there are many misconceptions about who uses VRBOs. Users are NOT renting a home in Sioux Falls to party like it’s 1999. If the city council tries to do this, there will be backlash.

I still think this is too little too late and most voters have had their mind made up for months. But you also have to question a sitting councilor(s) sharing his opinion on a ballot measure. I remember when that backfired when councilors and the sitting mayor were against the Drake Springs outdoor pool vote.

I also laugh when people talk about WF not smelling. Oh, it will smell. I grew up on a hog farm. Hogs stink. Ironically though, we will never know if WF smells or not, since Smithfield’s stink will always be waffling in the air above and beyond anything coming from WF.