Sometimes the City Council gets it right . . . sometimes

by

As I have watched this city government over the years, I often get suspicious when they do the exact opposite of what they normally do (Item #31). Usually they rubberstamp developer plans and kind of thumb their noses at individual property owners. Last night they took a left turn, denying a new development;

After being deferred twice over the summer, a proposed 17-lot development is receiving scrutiny after neighbors just to the south feel that they’ve been misled about what would be done near their homes.

“I’m a little confused because I thought the reason this got deferred twice was that Mr. Cooper was working on a solution for our questions and concerns, but I haven’t seen that so far,” homeowner Todd Miller said.

The Canterbury Heights neighborhood has one main road that is used as an entrance and an exit, which both homeowners and city council members see as a major safety concern.

“All of you guys are nice guys and you work really hard and you do great things for the city, but I am so disappointed for how these people have been treated, I can hardly say,” council member Michelle Erpenbach said.

“It’s unfortunate, these homeowners have had to live in a half-developed development, and they’re going to have to stay that way until many years,” council member Greg Jamison said.

On a vote of 1 to 7, the new development was rejected. Neighbors and city council members hope to work together to make sure an additional major access road is added. At that point, the additional development would likely be submitted again.

First off, who is Erpenbach talking about? The developers or the city staff? Probably both. It seems the planning department tried to pull another fast one and ramrod a project through without due diligence, they even roped a city fire marshal into going along with it. No doubt, the council was right to deny this development until the roads are completed to the existing development. A two track dirt road doesn’t count as an access road, in my opinion, only an emergency escape, when maintained.

But there are some factors to consider, and maybe why Staggers voted for the project. As I have said in the past, when you build your home on the edge of the city’s boonies, you can’t expect all the amentities that go with it, no matter what you have been told by the builder. But the existing development was promised finished roads. Here lies the problem. What incentive does the developer have to finish these roads? Will they finish them simply so they can move forward with the new development? Maybe, but that’s a gamble. I believe the city council’s denial only set the taxpayers of Sioux Falls up to finish the roads out there. This could have been solved before it got this far. The Planning Department and Planning Commission could have required the builder to finish roads while building the new development as a stipulation/package. As far as I can tell, that didn’t happen. Maybe I am completely wrong (and often I am) but I think this denial is only going to cost the rest of us, not the developer. Sometimes I feel sorry for the city council, because they are often given very little information before a vote, and when they do vote, it is too late to fix the initial problems with the planned development. We can partially blame the mayor’s office and the departments he manages, but the council should have a little personal responsibility in this by researching these projects before they vote.

Lately I have been watching the Minnehaha County Commission meetings, they operate much differently than the city council. When they need answers they drag the department heads in front of them and ask them. If they don’t have the answers, they defer projects until those departments give them answers. The city council should have done the same, and maybe some of them did, and were misled by city directors hell bent on protecting their own asses and jobs and doing what the boss tells them to do.

This is no way to legislate a city, and last night was proof of it. When government is transparent in their processes everyone leaves happy, the winners and losers, sometimes.

TIF rebate well spent

by

IMAG2706

Looks like the reviews are not the only thing falling to pieces at the new Hilton.

I searched our local news to see if anyone was covering this story, and found nothing. Not saying that none of them covered it, but it seems to be off the radar screen like a KDLT weather forecast.

The retaining wall at the Hilton fell over. There are many reasons this could have happened. I am not a landscaper, but one told me it could be a combination of bad backfill, improper stones and placement and probably heavy rains, either way, it failed, and it is only a year old. Thank goodness no one was on the bike trail when it happened.

This property received a TIF, and a bulkhead subsidy from the city and this is how that money is being spent, on shoddy work.

This is what happens when growth is too fast and not well managed. I am all for progression in our city, but it must be done right and well thought out.

It ain’t over until the fat lady sings while eating her salty snacks from Walmart

by
SON-REF-LOGO
As I suspected, the SD Supreme Court upheld the circuit court’s decision to allow the zoning for a 4th Walmart in Sioux Falls;
The South Dakota Supreme Court has upheld a lower court’s decision, allowing the annexation of land into the city which is now slated for a Walmart store.

The appellants are a group of residents near the site calling themselves Save Our Neighborhood. The group has argued that the land annexation was illegal because the city didn’t first get Lincoln County’s approval.

It was a long shot to begin with, but worth it. But this isn’t the end of the fight. Besides the fact that drainage is a serious issue in that neighborhood, as we saw this past week, there was another court filing by the SON group. Shortly after the election, SON filed a suit contesting the misleading ballot language. One of the main complaints was the mention of Walmart in the language. The ballot question was about re-zoning, not about Walmart specifically. The re-zone would allow any kind of large retailer to build there. In fact, as I understand it, Walmart only has a purchase agreement with the Homan family. If Walmart isn’t granted a building permit, they will have no financial obligation to purchase the land.
The city has yet to respond to the ballot language suit, or at least I have not seen anything in the media about it. Since WM won today, I wonder if they will ask the city to issue them a building permit (the only thing WM has left to do). Or will the city respond to the suit first? Of course that would require fairness and common sense from the city attorney’s office.
One can only guess what this Planning Department, Mayor and City Attorney will do, but I can guarantee whatever it is, it won’t be in the best interest of the SON neighborhood or the citizens of Sioux Falls.

 

Will the Prairie Meadows residents be able to afford annexation?

by
These numbers seem at bit daunting when it comes to cost of the annexation (DOC: PrairieMeadowsAnnex;
 Distributed on an individual lot basis per front foot.
 Sanitary Sewer – 3% for 20 years
 Water Main – 3% for 20 years
 Storm Sewer and Curb and Gutter – 3% for 20 years
 Surfacing, Sidewalk & Lights – 5.75% for 20 years
While the 3% interest rate doesn’t look to bad, the almost 6% rate seems a little high, especially for a neighborhood that may not NEED sidewalk and street lights. I will be interesting to see how this plays out.