Taxes

Property Tax Proposal (Guest Post)

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

Do ALL Downtown SF Businesses support Saturday metering?

The short answer is NO, and probably why they skirted this move administratively instead of bringing it in front of the council where DTSF businesses could air their grievances in the public square. I supported this based on 1) That DTSF (the org) reassured the council that DT businesses support this* 2) it will ONLY be on Phillips and you can still park for free in the ramps (which I think will gradually be used more due to the Saturday metering on Phillips).

*At first glance I am hearing that only about half of DTSF businesses support this, the rest are ‘wait and see’. This of course is from random conversations I had with DTSF business owners, workers in DTSF and some city staff. Nothing scientific.

I have no idea what kind of support it has.

Which brings us to the crux of the issue. Besides being the council’s duty to vote on new taxes and fees, and a First and Second reading would have allowed people who own businesses DTSF and work DTSF to share their opinions. Maybe most of them support it? I don’t know, and we never will because the process was not followed and the council, once again, allowed a precedent by the mayor’s office. Tsk! Tsk! I sometimes wonder if Trump is our shadow mayor.

What’s next for the Riverline District?

I can’t imagine the meetings at City Hall today after the SD Legislative Taxation Committee killed the 3rd penny tax in a squeaker, 7-6. It is no secret their ignorant plan was to convince some rubes from rural districts to support this so they can build a street. But most people knew the jig was up. This was about building a Convention Center that nobody wants or cares about. The Ice Ribbon is a great example of a project NO ONE, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE asked for. But now $16 million later here we are.

So some are asking, without this special 3rd penny tax authority can we move forward with the Riverline District? Yes and NO.

While I think the mayor is about as bright as a bar of soap in a truck stop restroom, I think he knew this may not pass, so they may have a backup plan.

I hate to break it to you Poops, but the legislature is dug in on this one, it ain’t going anywhere. Even if passed out of committee it would have been DEAD in the full legislature.

So how can they still salvage the Convention Center deal? It will be financial gymnastics, but they can still do it within their means, but on a smaller scale. My guess is they will push all bond expectations toward the project and see how much they can borrow. They have also been banking reserve funds which I think they want to use for a down payment (It is between $70-80 million) Why does the city have a savings account from our taxes that is 3x what ordinance asks for? With this surplus and borrowing authority the city could build this without a special tax, but the private donations would have to be significant.

My suggestion all along is to implement an INCOME tax on corporations in SF that have more then 500 employees, Hotels and Hospitality to pay for this. They are the benefactors of conventions, visitors and tourism, the average citizen buying a Twin Bing at the GC won’t benefit BUT these industries would. MAKE THEM PAY FOR IT!

To tell you the truth, the more I think about it, I am not opposed to the city buying the land, it has potential, but with this crappy tax revenue source killed, the city will have to get creative. My suggestion? Demo and plant grass, form a committee that will tell us the best use for the land for the least expensive capital improvement. One idea I had years ago is turning Fawick park into a sculpture garden and put all the SculptureWalk sculptures in the park as a destination, essentially an outdoor museum. We could do this here for minimal costs.

It is no secret that Poops would benefit financially thru this deal (still digging on this one, and will crack that case).

Make no mistake, TenHaken’s lack of leadership, transparency and vision put the last nail in this coffin, and I got to admit after I watched the vote live, I howled in enthusiasm. I think I even did a jig. I am a good jigger.

But don’t get lazy, they will try to cut a deal and we must ride their asses until they are dragging on a gravel road. This ain’t over.

The irony of all this is Poop’s record on getting things done. It is awful. And if I was him I would be embarrassed and resign. Bunker Ramp, 6th street bridge, Delbridge dead monkeys, and the constant lying and belittling of public inputers. YOU ARE NOT A LEADER. YOU ARE NOT A VISIONARY.

The 1st Amendment and the Sioux Falls City Council

It seems I am spending a lot of time these days talking about the role of the council and the 1st Amendment. The thing that always puzzles me is that the 1st Amendment is NOT complicated, but folks struggle with it.

So today HB Bill 1050 got killed, by a ONE VOTE in taxation committee. Several folks were instrumental in killing this bill. It would have pretty much put a $450M tax debt on the citizens of Sioux Falls if passed. I posted Greg Neitzert’s written testimony after the hearing. I truly believe that testimony changed minds, and Cathy B’s telephone testimony cinched the deal. I also emailed the committee suggesting amendments and solutions (I think it would be good for small towns, but NOT SF.)

After this I assumed city hall was reeling, trying to figure out their next steps (I will post later about the future of the Riverline District).

But things got really interesting.

I’m going to leave the constituent’s name out of this for privacy reasons, and the city councilor, because I think it applies to the ENTIRE council.

Their is a constituent that emails the mayor and the council quite a bit, he is very involved in local politics, and I don’t always agree, but he always CC’s me in the emails so I am a media witness (I think I told him to do this). I have several concerned citizens that CC me when sending emails to the city council and I encourage you to CC me, witnesses are important.

fb.art@sio.midco.net

I sometimes do a reply all to their emails if I feel something needs to be clarified or piled onto.

After I posted Former Sioux Falls City Councilor Greg Neitzert’s* submitted written testimony to the taxation committee on the blog this constituent emailed the council with Greg’s testimony and a brief statement about his work. This person called the council ‘CORRUPT’ three times, but in fair context and NOT harassment. Then he said that Greg has ‘LARGE BALLS’. Trust me, I spit out my coffee when I read that, but it’s NOT a threat or harassment. In fact, Neitzert saw the email and thot it was funny. So a newly elected city councilor wasn’t having it and reported the email to Human Resources as harassment. HOGWASH! Not only is this constituent completely harmless they wouldn’t hurt a soul, but that doesn’t matter. This NEW councilor seems to think that he is a city employee and has the same protections, he does not, YOU ARE ELECTED and must follow the constraints of the 1st Amendment and the US Constitution. Now if such an email was sent to an unelected city employee, that would be an issue. So the city’s HR department warned this constituent if they send anymore ‘Harassing Emails’ they will be blocked. First off, they don’t have that authority because this person is NOT a city employee, secondly, sending an email about concerns is NOT threatening. It often puzzles me that they put their hand on a bible and swear an oath to the Constitution but have no idea what is in the document. If you can’t handle the heat in the Carnegie Kitchen may I suggest resignation. Nobody will miss yah. The irony of all this is this councilor was in a similar situation at a former employer. Kettle meet Black.

*Full disclosure, I worked on Greg’s first term campaign coordinating his messaging, graphic design, marketing and direct mail, it was one of the most successful campaigns I was involved with, we kicked ass and took names!