It’s Up! Can we handle the influx of tourists downtown?
l3wis Click to Enlarge
2019
A picture is worth a 1000 words
You gotta love it when the local media places the WRONG picture, but get it so RIGHT. LOL!
UPDATE: Can the entertainment tax be used on the State Theatre?
UPDATE: So here is the justification for using the entertainment tax;
Statute enabling the City to use the Entertainment Tax for promotion.
10-52A-2.   Additional municipal non-ad valorem tax authorized–Rate–Purpose. Any municipality may impose an additional municipal non-ad valorem tax at the rate of one percent upon the gross receipts of all leases or rentals of hotel, motel, campsites, or other lodging accommodations within the municipality for periods of less than twenty-eight consecutive days, or sales of alcoholic beverages as defined in § 35-1-1, or establishments where the public is invited to eat, dine, or purchase and carry out prepared food for immediate consumption, or ticket sales or admissions to places of amusement, athletic, and cultural events, or any combination thereof. The tax shall be levied for the purpose of land acquisition, architectural fees, construction costs, payments for civic center, auditorium, or athletic facility buildings, including the maintenance, staffing, and operations of such facilities and the promotion and advertising of the city, its facilities, attractions, and activities.
Source: SL 2002, ch 68, § 2.
Opinion from Attorney General defining promotion.
 From Opinion of Attorney General Mark V Meierhenry  (235) 1984.
$1.5 million is quite a bit to drop for promotion of a non-profit.
According to the press release about the state theatre, this was stated;
The Mayor has pledged $1.5 million to the Sioux Falls State Theatre Company to finance the exterior and structure of the building, life-safety measures, and accessibility. Paired with the gift from Mr. Sanford for the interior completion of the facility, the State Theatre is expected to reopen in 2020.
Using dollars from the City’s Entertainment Tax Fund, the City’s investment in the State Theatre comes from a pool of dollars restricted for culture and entertainment such as the Washington Pavilion and Denny Sanford PREMIER Center Complex.
But according to the ordinance on the entertainment tax, that can ONLY be used for city owned facilities;
SPECIAL TAX RATES.
   Notwithstanding the rate of tax established in §§ 37.001 and 37.002, from and after March 1, 1992, the rate of tax upon sales of leases or rentals of hotel, motel, campsites or other lodging accommodations within the city for periods of less than 28 consecutive days; sales of alcoholic beverages as defined in SDCL 35-1-1; sales of establishments where the public is invited to eat, dine or purchase and carry out prepared food for immediate consumption; ticket sales or admissions to places of amusement, athletic or cultural events is 3%. Any revenues received from the tax imposed in this section in excess of 2%, but not more than 3%, shall be used only for the purpose of land acquisition, architectural fees, construction costs, zoo maintenance and operational expenses, and payment for an entertainment center and a convention center, including maintenance, staffing and operations of these facilities and the promotion and advertising of the city, its facilities, attractions and activities.
It will be interesting what the city’s legal department will say about using this money for a facility the city doesn’t own. Will the ordinance have to change? Is there some legal case they can fall back on? I wonder if the city council knew they were going to use entertainment tax dollars when this deal was being put together.
The Survey Says! The EC Campus Book Club releases survey
Whoa . . . Detroit Lewis was almost 2 for 2 today in his predictions, but I still need a little more information.
First, lets go over what the survey said and how it was conducted;
There were more than 2,000 responses submitted over the two-week period of the survey, which surpassed the goal of the project. Lawrence & Schiller analyzed 640 responses to generate its statistically significant data.
First off, I find it interesting that Jodi had the lead on this story. Did the city or L & S pay her to put up this data? Not sure, but interesting move. The irony is I recently told a city official the only two people who have the historical knowledge of city government over the past decade is Jodi and me.
The above numbers are important. As a person who has looked at voter data in Sioux Falls and who votes in city elections, I’m guessing the magic number of ‘640’ wasn’t pulled from the survey taker’s butts. I can safely assume these are almost 100% registered voters. But the data might have also been whittled down into other categories like who most likely always votes in Sioux Falls elections, or special elections like the Events Center election (which of course wasn’t a legal bond election, but an advisory vote). I can guarantee these 640 special people were carefully selected.
So let’s move onto the data;
• Only 17% wanted to save the Arena. I actually thought that number was kind of high 🙂
• 54% wanted to see SF Stadium demolished, but only 12% wanted to NOT rebuild. I find this interesting because I still don’t find the value of keeping the stadium or rebuilding. I guess I don’t have a problem with rebuilding, but it has to be done with private money. But it needs to be demolished.
And then there is the ‘DUH’ factor;
Respondents also recognize the need to integrate more retail and dining to the campus to make it a more well-rounded experience.
This is the main reason why several city leaders and business persons did NOT want to build the EC in that area, and now we are paying for it and will continue to pay for it for decades.
Statema said the survey backed up many of the ideas the committee had discussed on campus development.
“It put into context some of our assumptions and highlights some things we weren’t thinking about,†Statema said. “It helped affirm the directions that we are going in.â€
Of course it did. When you use a private marketing company who whittled away two-thirds of the respondents you can manipulate the results very easily. I really don’t believe the voting public as a whole support rebuilding a new stadium, especially using tax dollars to do it (but private money, sure).
So now for my prediction. As I mentioned recently I think the reason the survey wants registered voters is because the EC Campus Book Club is going to present one heck of a BHAG. I think they are going to recommend tearing down the stadium (with plans to build elsewhere in the future). I think they will use the space for a major retail center/hotel which will be a private/public partnership with tons of tax incentives.
They will either reformat the Arena or level it for more convention space. Either way, this has been a long time coming and no surprise.
My guess is that these ‘changes’ will have an initial cost of around $50 million. That means there will probably be a bond vote of the public (Mayor TenHaken has mentioned that he would probably bring it to a vote of the people).
This is why the survey respondents were probably selected based on if they are voters and what elections they have voted in. I would love to see the blender L & S used to come up with the magical 640, but I’m guessing I would never be invited to that smoothie party.
*It is also interesting to point out that when L & S presented these results they showed pictures of the debacle parking ramp DT and mentioned that the Arena and SF Stadium both lose $614K a year. When asked about these stats, the L & S rep said, “Oh, that’ a typo.” Didn’t someone from the administration proof read this report?!Â
