Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Increment Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, petitioners press council on TIF process and neighborhood impacts; applicant explains drainage work
Summary
Two public commenters told the committee they were concerned about tax-increment financing (TIF) items on the consent agenda, possible influence on election-related deadlines under SDCL 9-20-11, and neighborhood impacts from a road connection proposed as part of an amendment to TIF District 84. The applicant’s representative described drainage and
Public commenters raised concerns at the Oct. 29 Rapid City Legal & Finance Committee meeting about tax-increment financing (TIF) items and the transparency of the process.
Chad (Chet) Ellsworth, identifying himself as a TIF petitioner, told the committee that petitions had been submitted and asked the council to review timing under state election law. Ellsworth referenced SDCL 9-20-11 and asked the committee to remove a prior meeting item relating to an opioid task force report from consideration to allow public review. "We're in an election and the elections, are dictated by this part of the code," Ellsworth said, and he warned the current schedule could approach "a 9/20/11 no action violation" in his view.
Mark Millar spoke during public comment on consent items and said he learned about Tax Increment Finance District No. 99 only recently and urged more transparency. He also raised concerns about an amendment to TIF District No. 84 that would, he said, route a road across a field and push traffic through a long-established Homestead neighborhood. "You're now proposing to take a road a half mile across the field and stuff it through a neighborhood... you're gonna put all of that traffic... and shove it through a small community that's been there for 30, 40 years," Millar said.
When Councilmember Lindsay Seacrest pulled item 12 (the District 84 amendment) for clarification, Hani Shafi of Dream Design, representing the applicant, described the changes staff recommended. Shafi said the amendment includes drainage improvements to North Valley Drive, creation of a detention pond consistent with the adopted drainage basin plan, and a collector-to-collector connection that will route some traffic from Homestead to Valley Drive and ultimately to Highway 44. "Currently, the drainage across is Valley Drive and goes through actually somebody's garage almost," Shafi said, adding the project is intended to divert drainage across the applicant's property and build a detention pond to alleviate downstream flooding.
Seacrest and other committee members asked procedural questions about how the amendment came forward and asked staff and the applicant for additional information before city council consideration. Millar asked for clarity on consent-item appropriations, including whether the $709,687 referenced in the agenda item was a grant, loan or pass-through; staff later explained that figure is federal MPO funding pass-through via SD DOT and that the full MPO program is about $866,000.
No formal action on the amendment was taken at this committee meeting; item 12 was pulled for discussion and more information was requested.
