The day after the vote

by

AFB (American Freedom Press) reporter, Kyl Kwat called Sioux Falls mayor and city councilors Tuesday morning to get their reaction on last night’s sales tax increase.

Councilor Brown was disappointed that Costello wanted to cut funding to the Parks and Rec department to offer an alternative to the sales tax increase.

“I just felt it would really cut into the quality of life the parks bring to our city and I was damned if he was going to stop the construction of our newest park, The Unicorn and Rainbow Gardens. This project has been near and dear to me, and it would just break my heart not to see those unicorns dancing with children in plush fields of butterflies and leprechauns .”

Councilor Costello had this to say about Vernon’s opposition to his alternative funding package;

“Is he still whining about that stupid Unicorn park? That guy really needs pull those rainbow dreams out of his a . . !”

We questioned Mayor Munson as to why he felt it was necessary to gavel a citizen who pointed out that the board of ethics was politically appointed.

Munson: “He’s just flat wrong!”

Kwat: “But they are appointed by you, correct?”

Munson: “Yes.”

Kwat: “and you are a politician that belongs to a political party, correct?”

Munson: “Yes.”

Kwat: “Well wouldn’t that make them political appointees?”

Munson: “POINT OF ORDER! POINT OF ORDER!”

We called councilor Knudson at 11:00 am and apparently woke her up.

“Why are you calling so early? I’m exhausted!” Knudson replied.

We told her it was 11 am, and she apologized, “I’m just out of it, you know that little troll that comes to all the meetings just goes on and on about citizen’s rights, the First Amendment, blah, blah, blah and it gets really tiring. My normal nightly routine is watching a rerun of Golden Girls and hitting the hay at 7:15 pm. You’d think with all the time I put into the meetings I was getting paid to be there or something?”

Kwat: “Aren’t you?”

“Silly boy! $17,000 a year? That barely covers the detailing on my Trans Am convertible for the year!” Exclaimed Knudson.

We called councilor Beninga’s home and got this message from his answering machine: “This is Gerald. Thank You for calling. I voted No. Bye.”

Councilor Litz, though mostly silent through much of the proceedings last night had this to say, “I voted yes on this, because I’m for progress and against citizens, no, I mean, I’m for street closures, no, I mean I’m for new streets, and car lots and, five cars for my kids. You know I buy a lot of groceries . . . and nails, you know? Because I like to eat and build houses.”

Jamison seemed confused why so many citizens were against a tax increase to build new arterial streets. “How else is my family business going to make money?” Greg pronounced, “There is only so much commission my wife makes on selling $895,000 homes! Besides her hobby real estate business hardly helps to make ends meet. Good thing I get that $17,000 a year to serve on the council, them beauty bills from the salons and spas are getting steeper every year. Inflation you know?”

Kermit Staggers still sounded frustrated about the question of whether the platting fees were really a tax. “You have a city attorney, a mayor and unicorn boy who have no regard for the law, or for a citizen’s right to vote on the issue. I had to read them South Dakota codified law during the meeting because I still think they do not understand that it was a tax and not a fee.”

Kwat: “What did you think of their reaction to you reading the law?”

“Reaction?! I think De was asleep, Litz was eating a cookie, and Vernon was day dreaming of licking creamsicles on cotton candy clouds.”

But Anderson’s comments were very telling. “I think sitting on the city of Detroit’s council would be less controversial. At least they have sex, drugs and rock & roll to get them through the day, and that’s just on their Blackberries.”

ON A SIDE NOTE: We also want to recognize that Iraqi immigrant and director of the multi-cultural center, Quadir Aware spoke at the council meeting thanking the councilors and the mayor for cleaning up the SEX in Falls Park.*

*(though most this article is complete bullshit, that statement is not.)

Posted in: SF City Council, Sioux Falls, Taxes ⋅ Tagged: , ,

If you build it, they will come

by

When you build our streets like race tracks, things like this happen;

After a lengthy investigation, warrants were issued for nine men participating in organized street racing that was taking place in northeastern Sioux Falls.

As I said to a person today, have you ever ate just half of a king size candy bar?

While these people are obvious crooks for racing and gambling, why encourage this activity by building roads that look and feel like race tracks. While I ride in the street a lot with my bike, once I get out of Central SF, I ride residential or sidewalks, because the roads are to dangerous because of high speeds.

So how much will the investigation and prosecution cost us because we build oversized roads?

So now that we have several interstates running thru the city as arterial roads maybe it is time we looked at how our roads are designed instead of farting around with expensive investigations and prosecutions.

Posted in: Uncategorized

UPDATE III: Your Dream Home Awaits in Southwest Brandon

by

UPDATE III: I wanted to make a correction to some of the things being said about how the homeowners will be paying back the TIF. While I have surmised from Mr. Powers testimony last night that the repayment would go back to the developer, SF Simplified was told this from the city’s planning office;

The $2.14 million would help with the costs of getting the site ready for homes, designing, etc., and it’d be paid back to the city over the next 20 years via property taxes.

Which makes more sense since the city is footing the bill for the infrastructure, but it still puts into question what was said at the meeting last night.

Does the developer take on the $2 million in debt or the City? Is it a 15 or 20 year TIF? I’m not sure who is in charge of talking points for this project, but it gets more confusing by the day.

A city official told me today that the payback to the TIF will actually go to the bank who is giving the loan for the development, which makes sense. Oh, and guess who that bank is 🙁

UPDATE II: Finally! At the planning commission meeting tonight, commissioner Larry Luetke asks how the TIF works when it comes to the eventual purchaser. Planning staffer, Dustin Powers explained that as people purchase the homes they will have to pay their FULL property taxes then the county will pay part of those tax funds back to the developer until they hit the $2 million amount. In other words the developer is paying the full cost of the development and the homeowners will be paying back the developer thru their taxes over the next 15 years. So essentially, like Starr said last night, this is just a $2 million dollar break on the development itself, for the developer, and gives the eventual homeowner NO tax savings.

On top of that, there are NO guarantees the pricing will come in where they would like them to. The developer has already warned those prices could fluctuate (in other words go up) and there is no contractual agreement to keep the price where promised. Good for the developer, not so good for the homeowner.

*on a separate note, one of the newer commissioners called roads in a development ‘artillery roads’ instead of ‘arterial roads’. I’m not sure what an artillery road is, but if you drive around some central neighborhoods you can certainly see some streets that look like they got hit by artillery.

UPDATE: Tonight at the city council informational meeting they did a presentation on the TIF and it’s hard not to come to the conclusion that developer, not the future homeowner is benefitting from the TIF. Councilor Starr said it best when he suggested that maybe the city should just pay for the $2 million in TIF expenses (infrastructure) out of the general fund and not mess around with the TIF.

Either way, the half ass promise made from the administration, planning and the council before the last election is we were going to target affordable housing in our core, building density while cleaning up our central neighborhoods. Instead we got a ham and cheese sandwich made from Spam and Velveeta.

———-

The Sioux Falls Planning Commission will be mulling over TIF #26 (Items 5C & D) this next Wednesday. As you can see from the drawings below these are pretty tiny houses. I was also surprised by the floor plan in which the bedrooms were not placed next to each other with one bedroom next to the front entry.

What is curious is there is NO mention in the agenda documents about who will be getting the 15 year tax break. The developer or the new homeowner? There is also the infamous recommendation from un-elected paid planning staff;

Both staff and the development team believe this amount of TIF support is appropriate and adequate for the project to move forward, and that without TIF in this amount, this project as presented would be unable to move forward.

The classic ‘We can’t do this without the TIF.’ But again, I ask, who will be getting the tax break? How do you give a 15 year tax break to a developer who will be selling the homes? Will the new owners be getting a 15 year tax break? I’m puzzled how this will work. It appears to me that the developer will be getting a $2 million dollar tax break up front and the new homeowner will have to pay the normal taxes.

Hopefully we will hear an explanation at the meeting.

*You will also notice that the planning agenda is NOT using the annotated agenda like the city council is using now. Not sure why transparency is so hard for these folks?

Posted in: Brandon, Planning Commission, SF City Council, Sioux Falls, TIFs

UPDATE: Sioux Falls Developers want to use trickle down economics to build affordable housing

by

It didn’t work when Reagan proposed it, and it won’t work now. IRAB (INFRASTRUCTURE REVIEW ADVISORY BOARD) is proposing waving platting fees for new housing developments;

INFRASTRUCTURE REVIEW ADVISORY BOARD (IRAB) MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 1, 2022, AT 8:00 A.M. LOCATED AT THE DOWNTOWN LIBRARY, 200 N DAKOTA AVE, SIOUX FALLS, SD

AGENDA:

1.     Approve June 1, 2022 Agenda

2.     Approve May 4, 2022 Meeting Minutes

3.     Light and Power Update – Developer Procured Street Light Materials

4.     Proposed Revisions to 96.220 – Arterial Street Platting Fee

5.     Proposed Revisions to 51.065 – Water Distribution Platting Fee

6.     Proposed Revisions to 51.118 – Recovery of Cost of Storm Water Drainage System

It seems developers want tax breaks for building new homes, and they will supposedly pass those savings on to homeowners. That will NEVER happen. The demand for housing is at such a high level right now developers have ZERO reason to pass on those savings, they will likely pocket the savings.

DOCS: Agenda, Distribution, Drainage, Streets, Minutes of last meeting.

UPDATE: This story lays out why housing is so expensive. WAGES!

Posted in: Developers, Development, Sioux Falls

Idiotic Electric Foot Scooter ordinance will be withdrawn

by

I was actually surprised this was not pulled and killed last Tuesday in the 1st Reading. While I support these devices in Sioux Falls, and really don’t care who rents them out, they belong on the street not on the sidewalk;

The program brought up several concerns for downtown Sioux Falls, including how they would be regulated, like restricting speed and where scooters would have access to ride in the downtown area.

“We haven’t even gathered all of our data from our members, which is exactly why we had this town hall today and we heard a little bit from them. You know, the fun factor of electric scooters downtown versus the need for them, the safety and the pedestrian traffic. We are a very walkable density populated downtown. We feel like people can walk from store A to store B,” said Greater Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce President Jeff Griffin.

He is correct about the walkability, and exactly the reason they should not be on sidewalks. I think they should just restrict them to side streets and not allow them on thoroughfares like Minnesota and 41st street and arterials.

I think the reason this was pulled is because Downtown business owners got pretty irate about the fact they were not included in discussions before this made it to the council agenda. As I said earlier, this is what happens when you don’t include the public in these discussions and just ramrod laws thru you concocted in a dark room. OPEN government is essential to GOOD government. I wonder if the city council will ever learn this?

Posted in: Downtown Sioux Falls, SF City Council, Sioux Falls