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.
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.
Last Tuesday the City Council got a presentation on RFP’s vs. Negotiated Sale. The topic came up because a negotiated sale is what the city is apparently still in the process of negotiating with the developer, Christensen, for the proposed development behind 8th and Railroad. I find this a little alarming. Back in June of last year the council got a presentation on the development. The developer told the council then that they planned to break ground in the Fall of last year or Spring of this year, now the planning department says it is is still in the ‘negotiating stage’. How can you be in the negotiating stage when the Planning Commission approved the TIF last July? Now there was a statement made by the proposed developer in June when they made their initial presentation; they said they would coordinate their build out with how fast the properties at the Steel District and more specifically Cherapa II would lease out. One wonders if those properties are having trouble being leased, and coincidentally slowing investment in the Christensen development? But we know how these games are being played in town. Years ago a franchise motorcycle repair shop tried to come to town and a major competitor with their wrench in city government convinced banks and other investors to back away from this franchise essentially shutting them down before the doors even opened. Funny how a TIF gets approved before a land purchase is even signed. We got some real clowns running the city these days . . .
SPEAKING OF A CIRCUS
There has been a lot of talk lately between constituents about how light and meaningless the city council agenda has been lately. The story is the lame duck mayor is telling council no new policy initiatives will be allowed on the agenda. I told someone, “The only reason you would shut down the only function of your policy body is because you have someone bigger then you riding your ass.” More to come on this.
UPDATE: Mike Zitterich sent me this;
I wanted to see how many ordinances and resolutions that get posted to the City Council Agenda by the mayor or city councilors, and in 2024, here is what I came up with:
Out of 354 Ordinances/Resolutions sponsored from January 1, 2024 to December 30, 2024 —
Mayor………………………….183……52%……………………5.1 Per meeting
Private Applicants…………..97……27%……………………2.7 Per meeting
City Councilors………………74……21%……………………2.1 Per meeting
36 Meetings in 2024
HIGH:
Mayor sponsored 13 total on August 13, 2024
City Council sponsored 9 twice on May 14th and May 7th of 2024
Private Applicants sponsored 8 total 3 times during the 2024 season.
The Cass County Commission on Wednesday, July 5, rejected a developer’s request for public funding to finance the redevelopment of a property near Island Park, a financial boost that was already approved by the Fargo City Commission just last week.
The Fargo City Commission actually approved the TIF with only one dissenter, and he was doozy;
The project itself is a fine idea, Strand said, but he questioned if the city should be financially supporting it.
“I just don’t know if it’s our job as a city to partner to do that,” Strand said. “I just don’t know that’s our role, or what we should be doing… there’s lots of folks buying properties, remodeling and demolishing, but they don’t always come to us to have a 300,000 dollar investment in that.
Unlike Sioux Falls where the counties and school board just rubberstamp the city’s TIF proposals, Cass County said, NO WAY!
Strand is correct, it is NOT the responsibility of taxpayers to help fund condos. Maybe Sioux Falls needs to learn this. Just a few years ago we gave out over $50 million in TIF’s for attached parking garages to condos. While the developers are seeing millions in tax breaks and benefits there is very little ROI for taxpayers.
I actually wouldn’t be against TIFs if they helped with affordable housing and were much shorter;
“Coming at this with $300,000 (taxpayer) dollars for five units, the math for me is not even close to working,” Peterson said, adding he’d support a cheaper, five year TIF for the project.
That is what often cracks me up about TIFs, they last so long there really isn’t an ROI for taxpayers. By the time the TIF expires the property has probably changed hands a few times and the developers of the project are laughing all the way to the bank.
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.
l3wis 