Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves Grant Street assessment resolution with 7‑year payment amendment after neighborhood opposition
Summary
Sioux Falls City Council voted 8-0 Feb. 3 to adopt a resolution declaring the necessity of street improvements on East Grant Street and to assess adjacent parcels, after adding an amendment allowing assessments to be paid in seven equal annual installments.
The Sioux Falls City Council voted 8‑0 Feb. 3 to adopt a resolution declaring the necessity to construct street improvements on East Grant Street and to assess the cost to benefited lots, after the council approved an amendment permitting assessment payments in seven equal annual installments.
Wes Phillips of Public Works Engineering told the council the project design calls for a 24‑foot asphalt street with curb and gutter, sidewalk on one side and street lights. To address neighborhood concerns about speeding and parking, staff proposed a narrower roadway with no on‑street parking; the design also reduces cost and improves drainage, Phillips said. Construction was estimated at about $200,000; preliminary assessments were presented in the meeting materials as ranging from roughly $21,000 to $52,000 per property. Phillips said design work would occur in 2025, construction in 2026 and that assessments would be finalized in 2027.
Residents and property owners urged council to reject the necessity resolution or require the city to pay. Lynette Buck Miller and Elizabeth Archer, both nearby property owners, said assessments would be unaffordable and would harm property values. Archer said paving a dead‑end gravel road would diminish the character of her property and that, under state law, the municipality could elect to pay the cost. Christina Schwartz, a property owner on Grant Street, cited South Dakota case law and statutes and warned that the proposed assessments could make properties “nearly impossible to sell.” She urged the council to postpone or reject the resolution until special benefits to each parcel were proven.
Chester De Jong, who said he had negotiated with the city on earlier plans, said the road was needed but that the city’s delay had created the present dispute.
The city attorney addressed legal questions, referencing the South Dakota Supreme Court decision in Wade Hubbard v. City of Pierre and subsequent 2012 statutory revisions. The attorney said the municipal assessment statutes were revised after that decision and that the city was mindful of the legal requirements to show a special benefit to assessed parcels; he noted that tonight’s action is the initial resolution of necessity and that the actual assessment resolution and payment options will come later, in 2027, when staff will be required to show the special benefits for each parcel.
Councilor MacKeris proposed and successfully moved an amendment to section 4 of the resolution providing that assessments may be paid in seven equal annual installments to give residents planning clarity; councilors voted 8‑0 in favor of the amendment. The main motion to approve the resolution, as amended, then passed 8‑0.
Council discussion also encouraged further neighborhood discussion about sidewalks; staff said no additional right of way or easements were needed for construction based on the proposed layout, although final design work remains for 2025.
Votes at a glance: motion to declare necessity and proceed with design/bid for Grant Street improvements passed 8‑0 (amended to allow seven equal annual installments).
