During Poops regularly scheduled monthly appearance* on the Belfrage show he said that just because your appraised value of your home may go up 18% that doesn’t mean your taxes will go up that much. This is true. But what he said next must have been his sad attempt at an April’s Fool’s joke. He proceeded to say that some people’s taxes may go down. Hilarious stuff. The only case where this could even be true is if you move into a special category next year that would qualify you for a tax reduction (senior, disabled veteran, etc.). The only entities in Sioux Falls that are getting (massive) tax breaks are the welfare queen Tifilicious developers and we are all paying higher taxes because of it. My taxes going down . . . my ass!
*This was Greg’s BS excuse to not make it sound like a FREE campaign advert.
As the city council discussed giving $10 million towards the DSU Cyber project tonight and after watching the presentations and seeing the state supports this, I think it is a good project. Not sure I believe all the bull thrown about today, but it is a positive investment. I did shake my head though when the Dean of DSU was talking about what the $10 million investment in infrastructure was for and said something like, “It’s for campus lights and sidewalks, but we don’t know what that will cost since the final plans haven’t been drawn up yet.” So where did the $10 million number come from?
But what shocked me was these slides presented by the city finance director. Fortunately I took a screenshot, because these slides are NOT available online. The city has millions laying around in the reserve funds.
It is unfortunate the council was not told this last month so they could come up with projects (like cleaning up our core, or even better, CUTTING PROPERTY TAXES FOR ALL OF US! Instead the mayor, who hates transparency, hid the information from the council so he could push his pet projects, so far spending $12.5 million of it, with NO input from council except a vote once it was packaged in a neat little bow.
Whether you agree or disagree with the bonuses or the cyber project is of little concern, it is how the mayor secretly negotiated these projects that is very bad for good government.
So Councilor Soehl is sponsoring an ordinance for the city’s portion of property taxes to be refunded to low income seniors (1st Reading, Item #50)
â–ª A Simplified Process: Those who qualify for state assessment freeze program will be automatically enrolled. â–ª Must make application at the County for the State’s Assessment Freeze Program (existing process) by April 1 of the year preceding the year in which City will issue refund. â–ª Refund will be equal to the municipal property tax, but may not exceed $500 annually. â–ª City Council must renew program each year by resolution, and make an appropriation. â–ª If approved, first refund payment issued on or before March 31.
While I certainly don’t have an issue with offering this program it surely wreaks with hypocrisy. While Councilor Starr, the co-sponsor, has consistently voted against property tax percentage increases, most of the council has not. They have also approved millions in TIFs for luxury condos, parking ramps and egg roll factories which raises the taxes on the rest of us (mine went up 7.5% from last year) and they have yet to present a doable plan to combat affordable housing in our city.
All of this comes of course just a couple months from a city council election. Hmmmmm.
I’m all for keeping taxes affordable for low income seniors, but you have to wonder if it is at the cost of the rest of us. I have been arguing for awhile that we are being extremely overtaxed in Sioux Falls. Somehow we have $10 million laying around for infrastructure of a private non-profit research facility (even though a well maintained road goes right up to the development and water and sewer probably run right underneath it) and a couple million for employee retention bonuses (without a vaccination mandate or incentive).
If the city council wants to help out with property tax relief, why don’t we start with the people who are paying the lion’s share? I think the city council needs to start cutting property taxes, for all of us, and eliminate TIF’s and tax rebate for the big guys all together.
As l learned on Wednesday there is probably going to be proposed legislation next year that could change TIFs to apply to residential housing. But does the city have to wait for Pierre to make a move?
I don’t think so.
There are already things the city has been doing or are planning on doing;
• A home buying program for police officers and firefighters
• The city can give property tax rebates to homeowners, I think the last mayor to do this city wide was Hanson
• The mayor gives yearly tax rebates to dozens of developers and big employers
• Community development loans either low interest or no interest and federal grants associated with the program
• Councilors Pat Starr and Curt Soehl are exploring elderly property tax rebates
The city council only likely has the power to rebate the city’s portion of the property tax, but over a period of 5-10 years, that is significant savings.
I don’t think the city has to wait for state law to change, I think they have the power right now to start a city property tax rebate program for people who want to buy a home in our core that needs rehabilitation, in fact they could have started this program 20 years ago if they wanted to.
I have been a proponent for over a decade that the city engages in a pilot program in our core that rehabs entire neighborhoods with a combination of public works (streets, sewer, water, lighting, sidewalks, curb and gutter) and individual property owners with fixing up their property with the use of Federal grants, community development loans and city property tax rebates.
So why doesn’t the city pursue this? I don’t have that answer, but if I had to guess it has to do with developer greed and the elite structure of leadership in our city.
So when someone tells you it is hard to rehab poorer neighborhoods in our city because of ‘laws’ I just don’t believe them. The city council in conjunction with the mayor’s office and planning department have all the tools they need to start on a pilot program like this, but their hatred of the working poor is getting in the way of their handouts to the welfare developers.
UPDATE II: As I suspected one of Poops campaign rats called in the agenda posting. Supposedly this required the city clerk to ask all the councilors if they were going to attend and since quorum said they might, it was put on the docket. As I have already said before, I encourage all candidates to invite the entire council to their events and call the clerk’s office to have it put on the agenda calendar. Just make sure it is one of your greasy campaign rats, you wouldn’t want to demean yourself with such menial tasks.
UPDATE:Â I found out the tax inquiry has to do with a proposal by councilors Starr and Soehl about (city) property tax relief to the elderly, and if it is possible to give them a rebate if a program was formed.
As for the posting of a campaign fundraising event, I was sent this;
1-25-1. Official meetings open to public–Exceptions–Public comment–Violation as misdemeanor.
The official meetings of the state and its political subdivisions are open to the public unless a specific law is cited by the state or the political subdivision to close the official meeting to the public.
It is not an official meeting of one public body if its members provide information or attend the official meeting of another public body for which the notice requirements of § 1-25-1.1 or 1-25-1.3 have been met. It is not an official meeting of a public body if its members attend a press conference called by a representative of the public body.
For any event hosted by a nongovernmental entity to which a quorum of the public body is invited and public policy may be discussed, but the public body does not control the agenda, the political subdivision may post a public notice of a quorum, in lieu of an agenda. The notice of a quorum shall meet the posting requirements of § 1-25-1.1 or 1-25-1.3 and shall contain, at a minimum, the date, time, and location of the event.
The public body shall reserve at every regularly scheduled official meeting a period for public comment, limited at the public body’s discretion, but not so limited as to provide for no public comment. At a minimum, public comment shall be allowed at regularly scheduled official meetings which are designated as regular meetings by statute, rule, or ordinance.
Public comment is not required at official meetings held solely for the purpose of an inauguration, swearing in of newly elected officials, or presentation of an annual report to the governing body regardless of whether or not such activity takes place at the time and place usually reserved for a regularly scheduled meeting.
If a quorum of township supervisors, road district trustees, or trustees for a municipality of the third class meet solely for purposes of implementing previously publicly-adopted policy, carrying out ministerial functions of that township, district, or municipality, or undertaking a factual investigation of conditions related to public safety, the meeting is not subject to the provisions of this chapter.
A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.
While I will admit they may be squeaking by on the legality of this, I do ask some followups. Notice the word ‘may’. In other words, there was NO requirement that this should be posted. On the basis of this argument, that means anyone running for city office moving forward should or could post their fundraising events on this calendar because there could be a quorum coming to the event. I challenge anyone running for the city ballot to post all of their public events whether they are fundraisers or not to ask the city clerk’s office to have that event placed on the city council’s agenda calendar.
I also question if this was truly a public event. Yes, the public was invited, BUT, there was a fee to enter the event. Does this still make it public? Sure. But you could argue that if a quorum of city councilors are attending a Stampede Game that, that should be posted on the council’s agenda. Or maybe a quorum was attending a Levitt concert? Maybe that should be on the agenda.
Let’s face it folks, their was NO legal requirement for Paul’s campaign to post this. While it doesn’t violate any laws, it certainly is questionably ethical.
I will have to admit, when I normally peruse the agendas I can usually figure out WTF is going on, or at least have a teeny-tiny idea. I will admit though, Item #6, Approval of Contracts, Sub-Item #38, has me baffled;
City Attorneys, Engagement Agreement for City’s Authority to Provide Property Tax Relief, Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, LLP, $5,000.00
So there are a few things I do know. Our City Attorney’s office has been incompetent, ill prepared and ignorant of municipal law for years and depending on outside counsel for a whole host of things they know nothing about. I have often joked we should just have a purchase agent and paralegal in the office to save taxpayers money.
What I don’t know is why they have to have outside counsel give them advice on how to ‘legally’ give property tax relief. If you think this is about you and me, you are sadly mistaken.
Like I said, I have no idea what they are up to, but if I was a guessing man, this has to do with making the property tax breaks to the ones that mostly don’t deserve it, more accessible and more secretive. But that is just a guess.
Also notice in the calendar below, from the City of Sioux Falls website that candidate TenHaken has violated campaign rules and probably several city ethical rules by listing a fundraising event for his campaign on the official calendar of the city. How did this even get on there?!?!
l3wis 
