As a South DaCola foot soldier pointed out to me yesterday, how can 4 votes out of a 9 member commission pass a $94 million dollar TIF recommendation to the city council?

Good question. After spinning my wheels yesterday I discovered according to the Commission’s own rules and Robert’s Rules they can conduct business with 5 members present even if the chair is a non-voting member (they only break ties).

So this got me even more curious about the attendance of the Planning Commission, even pre-covid and discovered over the past year, even though they can attend meetings via phone, a good chunk of them don’t even bother to show up. In fact, over the past 14 months, they have never conducted business with a full body (9 members);

Feb 2021 – 5

Jan 2021 – 6

Dec 2020- 6

Nov – 5

Oct – 6

Sep – 7

Aug – 7

July – 7

June – 2 meetings, 6 at both

May – 6

April – 5

March – 6

Feb – 7

Jan – 5

While I totally understand that these members are volunteers, I question what they signed up for? While they do have to read a lot of materials to prepare, they only really need to attend ONE meeting per month for about 1-2 hours. That’s it!

But my blame for this attendance isn’t on this all volunteer board, it really lies in the lap of Planning Director Eckhoff and his boss Mayor Stoneless. Has there ever been an attendance discussion? My guess is probably not considering it is easier for the mayor and his developer friends to push an agenda when no one shows up to vote on that agenda (or very few).

I think it is absolutely disgusting that a board that is supposed to recommend to the council can pass a ludicrous $94 million dollar TIF on 4 out of 9 possible votes, with next to no discussion.

This administration gets sloppier by the day when it comes to process.

6 Thoughts on “Sioux Falls Planning Commission has serious attendance issues

  1. The Guy From Guernsey on February 7, 2021 at 12:51 pm said:

    It gets even more sloppy.
    When compared to the most recent meeting minutes, the roster of people appointed to the Planning Commission included on the City website is not current.

  2. D@ily Spin on February 7, 2021 at 1:12 pm said:

    Irregular and suspicious. Makes it possible to not have to vote NO yet still appease corrupt developers. Honest commission members have the worst attendance. If they’ll show up, they’d be a good choice for higher office. Also, easy to see which ones receive compensation for their YES vote.

  3. D@ily Spin on February 7, 2021 at 1:21 pm said:

    🎵 94 million bottles of beer on the wall. 94 million bottles of beer. Take one down. Pass it to commission. 93 million bottles of beer.

  4. The Guy From Guernsey on February 7, 2021 at 2:23 pm said:

    In fairness, about 1/2 of the meeting was dedicated to listening to the presentation by staff on this excercise in corporate socialism.

    Taxpayers of the Tri-Valley School District need to know that Bob Mundt, Pat Costello and (apparently, by virtue of his attendance in support of the plan) Steve Westra, SD Governors Office of Economic Development plan to steal $5 million from possible funding to operation of your school district through only 2025. Your school district will bankroll the SF Development Foundation in even larger amounts in later stages of this plan.
    Think of that as your superintendent and school board rub nickels together to patch together a budget for your district and look to you to fund construction and operation of new schools to serve the students in the southern portion of your school district.
    Bob Mundt wants the rest of the landowners in the school district to bear these costs over the next 20 years, as well as bankroll a $30 million slush fund for the Development Foundation.

  5. Mike Lee Zitterich on February 8, 2021 at 12:17 pm said:

    is the Sioux Falls Development Foundation a “Land Owner” or a “Land Developer” or both?

    Can these groups simply invade upon ‘land’ owned and operated by School Districts without a vote of the district itself?

    And does not the South Dakota Constitution have a clause that guarantees the people to “free from sectarian control”

    Article 22, Section 4 reads as follows: “That provision shall be made for the establishment and maintenance of systems of public schools, which shall be open to all the children of this state, and free from sectarian control.”

    If is true what you are saying; would this development invade upon that right?

    – Mike Zitterich

  6. The Guy From Guernsey on February 9, 2021 at 1:43 pm said:

    The SF Development Foundation is both landowner and land developer.

    While the SF Development Foundation with this TIF proposes to pilfer from the tax proceeds intended for the school district $5 million over the early years (even more later), there is no invasion of land.
    The school districts do not own all of the land within their boundaries.
    They are only entitled to levy and collect real estate taxes from the land.

    The SD Constitution specifically mentions that education be free from sectarian control. Nothing about people.

    As to the invasion upon any Constitutiinal right (and at the risk of getting crossway with some element of an argument for sovereign citizenry), Ima say, “no”.

    Any TIF, and especially one of this size; one which includes a $30 million slush fund is contrary to the flag of free enterprise and free market capitalism in which members of the political establishment in this state wrap themselves.
    Truth – most are registered as ‘Republican’ only as a means to be selected to positions and elected to office in this state.
    They simply belong to the social club which is republicanism in Sioux Falls.
    After all, how can a liberal socialist ask for government transfer payments in this state? That privilege is reserved for fReE mArKeT cOnSeRvAtIvE rEpUbLiCaNs [cough, cough].

Post Navigation