South DaCola

Editorial Cartoonist from South Dakota

Property Taxes

Mayor TenHaken Property Taxes Sioux Falls Taxes Uncategorized

UPDATE II: Mayor TenHaken will be playing ‘Chicken Little’ today at a presser

l3wis 10Comments

UPDATE II: I found some interesting quotes from the mayor and councilor Sigette. It is obvious they don’t believe in transparency so they are struggling with the rollout;

TenHaken told Sioux Falls Simplified that the cuts are strategically aimed at impacting the average citizen. He said if he just “lays off people behind the scenes,” no one will notice, and it won’t mean anything. But if someone who’s used to going to the story hour at the library at 9 a.m. doesn’t get to do that anymore, they’ll notice and ultimately call the mayor to complain.

First off, a municipal government can’t just lay off people behind the scenes (that may be illegal). You CAN and SHOULD tell constituents about the layoffs. I think most people would support a handful of overpaid middle managers being laid off opposed to cutting services. It only makes sense. But not to this guy who is worried a handful of city employees will be mad at him. I am hoping the city council has the courage to make the cuts to salaries (the council doesn’t have to instruct the admin to lay off anyone, but what they can do is force his hand by cutting the salary budget by $3 MILLION a year, which would force the mayor to lay off managers.

Jennifer Sigette had this to say;

“I’m really curious to know what the public’s going to say,” Sigette said. “We tend to hear from some fo the same loud voices. I’m hoping, since these are things the broader community uses, we’ll start hearing from people who don’t necessarily typically reach out to councilors.”

The public won’t say anything because they won’t know because city government has no transparency, as for the ‘loud voices’ comment, I’ve calmed down a bit, so I will just be to the point. Those people who come each week are actually representing folks who either can’t make the meeting or are afraid to publicly speak. Tim represents the Whittier neighborhood and Sierra is the president of the Pettigrew Heights association, I have a blog that has 5-10K readers a day and get many emails from constituents. We are LOUD because we are speaking on behalf of others. You really don’t get it? Do you? This is what happens when you elect someone with ZERO percent of the vote.

UPDATE: So I came to the presser today a few minutes late, and the door to the media room was locked so I asked the security guard why it was locked and he told me it locks automatically, and did not assist me in getting in. I asked a reporter after the presser about it and they told me they always have it locked and you have to wiggle the handle and they will let you in. WTH? This is an open to the public presser, paranoid much? More closed government BS from the king of closed government.

As for the presser, very interesting. It was obvious the mayor was fed a bunch of this information and just repeated it. He even said that SF citizens should elect better legislators. I would agree, but with gerrymandering and moving district lines, it would be hard to get a near perfect representation, but when it comes to property taxes, they did the right thing.

The mayor also concluded that the City doesn’t have much leverage when it comes managing what can be collected for property taxes (state legislature). This is patently FALSE. The council approves a tax increase every year since I can remember and having the power to institute TIFs without the approval of the counties and school district is a massive property tax restructuring that only increases taxes on the rest of us. If you stopped further TIF’s, our taxes would go down without legislation.

Now, Paul is correct, property taxes fund operating costs, but funds CAN be moved around to different departments. There are also quite a few operating expenses we could eliminate that wouldn’t have an effect on service. Paul suggests we cut essential programming instead of other cost cutting measurements. If we stop funding all the non-profits in town unless they are directly contracted by the city to provide professional services (Like the Link) we could easily save millions. But, Megan from SF Simplified had an even better suggestion, she asked why employee cuts were not looked at? I told a recent mayoral candidate that I would terminate all non-union middle management, not only would the cost saving be great (wages, benefits, retirement) they are NOT needed. The candidate laughed at me, but I told them, ‘Really? You have a director who gives an order to a supervisor below them, usually the assistant director, and takes those orders to union management. Silly. There is NO reason the director can’t instruct lower management, there is NO need for a middle man.

GREAT QUESTION MEGAN!

I heard that TenHaken is having a presser this morning (even though I can’t find any media alerts on FB or on the City’s website). I know, shocker, with all the openness and transparency with this admin . . . never mind.

He is going to discuss the city ‘losing’ $26 million in revenue over the next decade due to property tax cuts. Him and his lapdog finance director have been pushing this BS narrative for a week.

First the obvious, you are not ‘losing’ revenue that was never owed to you. The tax formula changed. So that means you change your budget forecast modeling after the new tax code and budget accordingly (in other words make cuts to capital programs).

Secondly, there will be NO cuts to regular programming (Fire, police, public works, etc.) that’s a false flag they are promoting. Who will take the hit? Mostly capital programs. In other words we may miss out on some park expansion and rec trail expansion, but these cuts wouldn’t affect regular services and they know it.

Thirdly, it is incredibly disheartening to see a lame duck promote higher taxes instead of cuts.

Lastly, I have maintained in my 18 years of blogging that TAXES are for essential services and not play things and entertainment venues. We have over extended ourselves on play palaces.

My first suggestion would be to cut MOST capital programs that are NOT essential the next 5 years. You would be SHOCKED at the tax savings, I would suggest it would be a heckuva a lot more then $2.6 million a year.

Also, I find this resistance to tax cuts insulting. As constituents we have had to cut back on stuff since Covid, and the Trump economy is making it worse, as I predict a full on recession by the end of the year.

I’m sorry, but when I am struggling to maintain my household expenses, I could give two-sh!ts about a new parking lot at a tennis court.

Property Taxes Sioux Falls Taxes

Property Tax Proposal (Guest Post)

l3wis 2Comments

South Dakota values fairness, family, and freedom. However, the current property tax system, is broken and threatens these core principles. While assessing property based on its potential sale price may seem logical in theory, its real-world application disproportionately impacts residents.

Consider the case of “Janet,” an elderly South Dakotan on fixed income. Janet and her late husband built their home 60 years ago, where she raised three children independently after her husband’s unexpected passing. For decades, Janet diligently maintained her home, paid her mortgage, taxes, and lived within her means. However, in her 80s, she was forced to sell her beloved home because her property taxes nearly doubled when she missed the elderly tax freeze deadline, becoming unaffordable. Mary’s situation highlights a systemic failure, not an individual one.

Currently, properties valued under $250,000 have experienced the most significant assessment increases, often doubling their tax burden. In contrast, some multi-million dollar properties have been assessed as low as 60% of their recent sales price. This discrepancy often arises when local assessors claim insufficient data to support recent sales/purchase prices, despite state law clearly stating properties must be assessed at fair market value (FMV). According to Cornell Law School, FMV is the price an informed and unpressured buyer would pay to an informed, unpressured seller in an arm’s length transaction, where the price is based solely on the property’s value and not by a subjective individual (assessor).

While well intended, SB216 missed the mark both on property owner relief and placed significant burdens on vastly growing cities/townships and a reform to the property tax law is still necessary. The best laws are simple laws and I propose basing assessed value on the purchase price of the property established in an arm’s length transaction, rather than an assessor’s determination for residential and agricultural properties. Additionally, I would recommend capping annual increases in assessed value at 2%. Upon the sale of a home, the assessed value would reset to the new purchase price.

This approach offers several benefits:

  • Stability for Property Owners: It provides predictability for families, and retirees allowing them to plan their finances without the risk of sudden, substantial tax increases.
  • Reduced Administrative Burden: By tying assessed value to transaction prices, the need for extensive assessor and/or County Board of Equalization interventions may decrease, potentially leading to budgetary efficiencies.
  • Predictability for Local Governments: With a predictable assessment increase, municipalities can better forecast revenue, enabling more stable budget planning.

Given that South Dakotans reside in their homes for an average of eight years, this proposed system offers a reliable and steady path forward for both homeowners and municipalities. This solution applies to residential and agricultural, emphasizing fairness and stability and could be easily implemented towards commercial properties.

By implementing these changes, we help can prevent our neighbors from being displaced by uncontrollable tax hikes and protect working families striving to build their futures. This straightforward and equitable approach will ensure that South Dakotans can remain in their homes.

*This post was provided by a Sioux Falls Real Estate Company

Property Taxes SF School District Sioux Falls TIFs

Stop the Opt Out

l3wis 1Comments

Local group is circulating this petition, I signed it today;

The Sioux Falls School Board just voted to approve ANOTHER opt out – this time to the tune of $2.1M for 10 years. The opt-out will allow the school district to raise additional funds beyond what they get in their existing tax levy and state aid, by collecting taxes from property owners in the district. SD Law allows citizens to bring this to a vote of the people (rather than a board of five unilaterally making the decision for all of Sioux Falls residents.) Deadline is July 17th. We will be circulating petitions to bring the opt-out to a public vote. This group will be for sharing information and locations to sign a petition (if you are a registered voter in the Sioux Falls School District) or if you would like to circulate a petition (have to be a registered voter in the State of South Dakota) you can find out more information for events/opportunities to volunteer at.

You know my feelings on this, stop handing out TIFs like candy and our opt outs would go away.

Property Taxes Sioux Falls State Funding State Legislature Taxes TIFs

Anonymous Legislator drops the bomb on property taxes and developer greed

l3wis 11Comments

Not sure ‘who’ this legislator is, but they apparently were in the legislature for at least 14 years, they left the comment on a thread on that ‘other’ blog. Notice the trashing of TIFs, they are absolutely right, they are driving up our taxes;

A few comments on property tax and what needs to be done to accommodate meaningful and responsible legislation to address the issue.

First of all the problem was created at the local level in the name of economic development by local officials and developers. The locals wanted tools in their “economic development tool box” and the legislature always pandered to their wants. In addition developers no longer want investors to in their vocabulary, They want that investment to come from the taxpayer.

This is a complex issue and cannot be resolved in 1 legislative session, but it must be done. I saw this issue become out of control during my 14 years on the tax committee when I was in the legislature, and it has only become worse over the past 10 years.

I believe that to address this issue some concessions must be made now, they include but are not limited to:
1. Put a moratorium on the creation and limit the use of TIFD’s, by local governing bodies beginning immediately. These things have proliferated and one is never paid off before several more are initiated. 12 to 20 active TIFD’s in any local government is profound abuse.
2. Put a moratorium on the creation and/or use of any further discretionary tax formulas. These can also be used in a TIFD and that provision needs to explicitly deny that.
3. Put a moratorium on the creation of any additional subdivision taxing districts within local government.
4. Prohibit the creation of any new political/public subdivisions by the legislature.
5. Restrict/prohibit any new “opt outs” and freeze those already in place from renewing or or expanding those opt outs.
6. Freeze levies for a period for those subdivisions already in existence, except if they should choose to lower the existing levy.
7. Freeze all specials and road tax on real estate at current levels, unless it is a reduction.
8. Reduce bonding authority levels of all local governing bodies.
9. Further restrict growth in local governing bodies budgets.
10. Restrict the BBB tax, BID tax, and city sales tax to current levels, and prohibit the use the use of these taxes to only the general fund with an obligation to reduce property tax. It has become increasingly evident that these dollars are being used as a cash payout to developers with little or no regard for the taxpayer. Restrict BID boards and all other political subdivisions from giving tax revenue to any other body with taxing authority.
11. Require local governing bodies who have acquired real estate to get at minimum the price they paid for the property, rather than just a fraction of what they paid for it.
12. Prohibit any non-profit with taxing authority from asking for any local governing body for contributions outside of their tax base.
This certainly is not a complete list, but it is a beginning. I firmly believe many of these things need to be done for accountability at the local level. I blame the legislature for many of the problems associated to property tax increases. Most off the issues prevalent today are caused by the term “economic development”, in an effort to lower taxes. It doesn’t work, never has worked, and will never work. Countless studies have indicated, time and again, that these issues cause an increase in taxation rather than a reduction.

Furthermore these thing are being abused by the affluent, developers, “non profits”, and the unknowing and uninformed (local elected officials), all at the expense of the local taxpayers,
and that is a fact. Local property taxpayers are being lead to slaughter in the name of corporate welfare, and it needs to stop. If a developer thinks he/she has a valid idea he/they should have no problem finding investors to support the idea without the taxpayers investment which, is a liability on them and never produces a dividend.

I know this will be a hard sell as developers and the unknowing locals will fight it with a vengeance. It has become apparent locally that elected officials don’t run the show, they are kept in the dark and fed sh_t like a mushroom.

Ask some hard questions of local officials about current activities in your area. They refuse to answer, skirt the issue, or lie. I have investigated and found the answers and the truth. Documentation is damning.

To provide adequate property tax relief requires doing a responsible study as to the real problems associated with it. To get a responsible study all of the issue listed previously must be considered, and that cannot be done responsibly during a short legislative session.

Initiating some or all of the previous stated issues can go a long way to improve a comprehensive study and reduce inflated values and property taxes. I understand the legislature did not cause the problem entirely, but they did enhance it and became enablers for the local governing bodies, who do not responsibly use the tools given to them. I know they asked for it, but like a child who doesn’t understand, sometimes you must take away their gift until they can totally understand the ramifications of improper use.

Municipalities are allowed a sales tax. The purpose behind that was to supplement their general fund budget. Not to use as grants to developers for millions of dollars.

There is a lot going on, misuse of those dollars needs to be cornered, if it is not it will only become worse for the taxpayer.

No new taxes would be necessary if local governments were made to be responsible.

Downtown Sioux Falls Property Taxes SF School Board Member SF School District Sioux Falls TIFs

Instead of Op-outs maybe we need to make TIFS harder to get

l3wis 2Comments

Ever since the State Morons in Pierre changed the rules for TIFs (can be for economic development now) They have exploded. I suggest that we limit them to severely damaged lands and low-income housing. The school district just did ANOTHER opt-out, and lied to the public about our taxes increasing. A foot soldier left this comment about the opt-out on Turdbook;

As regular taxpayers are asked to fish into their pockets for $2.1 million of additional money, each year for the next 10 years, be reminded that just for the TIF package given to the developers of The Steel District, the Sioux Falls School District will forego (aka not collect) $1.05 million in real estate tax revenue from those parcels in 2026. For the TIF package given to the developer of Cherapa II, the Sioux Falls School District will forego nearly $1.2 million of real estate tax revenue from those parcels in 2026.

In other words if we started eliminating TIFs and close out the current ones our taxes would actually go down. Did you know that 80% of property taxes paid in the school district and city are from single-family owner occupied homes. So yes, we are paying for these TIFs. And for what? A parking ramp? Public art? Tequila Bar? Seriously! If we eliminated ALL the TIFs we have on the books now the school district would take in MILLIONS in revenue from the big commercial developments. Why are homeowners asked to pay the majority of taxes in Sioux Falls? It should be a 50/50 split between homeowners and commercial property. TIFs never have much of a ROI, studies for decades across the US have shown they don’t stimulate growth and produce very few jobs except when being built. TIFs are a boondoggle and the average Joe is taking it in the shorts. In memoriam of a certain developer who passed recently, the council should make steps to eliminate TIFs from our city, once and for all.

Next Page »

You Missed

Mayor TenHaken Sioux Falls Sioux Falls Parks and Rec

Where are the savings in closing the libraries 10 hours a week?

1st Amendment Affordable Housing Mayor TenHaken Planning Commission Sioux Falls

Looks like the City of Sioux Falls is looking at a jury trial?

Christine Erickson Elections

Erickson’s Announcement

Sioux Falls State Legislature

Sioux Falls Prison Forum