Sioux Falls City Council Agenda, May 4-5, 2022

The meetings are on Wednesday and Thursday this week because today was supposed to be the runoff election.


Informational Meeting • 4 PM • Wednesday May 4

Presentation on 2022-23 Sculpture Walk Review by Brandon Hanson, Director of Museums, WPAS & Sculpture Walk

Regular Meeting • 6 PM • Wednesday May 4

Item #6, Approval of Contracts, Sub Item #4, Leadership Training. The pricing is attached to the agenda item. As I have discussed before, I do support ongoing training of city employees, but what I find astounding is training people who should already be able to fill the rolls. It is also very expensive.

Item #60, 2nd Reading, Sidewalk ordnance changes. As I have said previously, I find it strange we would be making significant changes in the middle of 2,600 violations handed out in the core neighborhoods. What I find ironic is if you look at sidewalks on city property (adjacent to city buildings) the sidewalks are in dire shape. But instead of focusing on that they go after private homeowners to deflect.

Item #61, giving more money out for the ice ribbon. Shocker.

Planning Meeting • 6 PM • Thursday May 5

Item #2B, Wants to change from regular suburban residential to historic preservation. I just think this one is interesting because it is on the 21st St Blvd in McKennan Park and if you drive past the home you can see a lot of work done. But why switch it? Well, if you can get your home designated as historic preservation you can get tax incentives and even grants. I would be curious if they are requesting this change because of the love of historic preservation or for the tax incentives? Probably both.

Item #2N, Changes to Annexation ordinances. I find it interesting that these changes are pushed into the consent agenda without discussion, and this part was added;

Upon receipt of a request from property owner(s) to annex property into city limits, the petitioner, the public works department, and city attorney’s office have the authority through SDCL 9-4-1.1 to enter into an agreement specifying the conditions under which the landowner’s property may be annexed into the municipal boundaries.

Not sure what that means, but anytime you add an entire section, it probably doesn’t mean the government is giving you more rights, probably the contrary.

Item #5A, Ordinance changes to Concept Plans.

Item #5B, Ordinance changes to Shared Paths.

Item #5C, Amending 2040 Comprehensive Plan.


#1 Mike Lee Zitterich on 05.03.22 at 9:19 pm


Item #2N – simple means the city and the land owner are amending the terms as per ordinance what must be agreed to before the land owner and/or city annexes the land into city limits.

It is a bunch of legal mumble jumble based on contract law. For example, if the Landowner petitions to be annexed into the city, they have to agree or not agree to participate in the city’s utility program, water-sewer program, etc. Stuff like that. Upon annexing your property into the city, “YOU” as the land owner can agree to terms of how to manage your land, or what happens if the city were to dissolve itself – what should happen to the land, or for example, if the Landowner wants to remove his land from the city limits, etc. All that legal verbage must be agreed to. They also can agree to terms on Land Uses”

For example, the city is wanting to adopt revisions to 153.001 to read as follows:

A completed analysis considering the availability of That municipal utilities and access to a major street network are considered in terms of for the proposed boundary annexation area and land uses; and that there is an agreed upon timetable which municipal service will be extended into the contiguous territory.

–> Landowners have tons of power here where they agree to submit their land to the city limits, and SDCL 9-4-1.1 basically is a ‘written agreement” between the city and the land owner(s).

Municipalities authorized to enter into annexation and development agreements with landowners.

A municipality may enter into an agreement with any landowner specifying the conditions under which the landowner’s property may be annexed pursuant to § 9-4-1 or developed.

Make Sense?

#2 Very Stable Genius on 05.03.22 at 9:37 pm

So, let me get this right. The City strategically anticipated an election, while the School Board strategized that there would not be one.

( and Woodstock adds: “Say, whatever happen to the word ‘strategery’?”…. )

#3 VSG on 05.03.22 at 9:39 pm

“…. A municipality may enter into an agreement with any landowner specifying the conditions under which the landowner’s property may be annexed pursuant to § 9-4-1 or developed”…..

But this all assumes you can afford an attorney.

#4 D@ily Spin on 05.04.22 at 10:39 am

Rubber stamper stuff. The new male all white council will only have to discuss what works best for getting ink off their hands.

Not a good time to change sidewalk harassment. Legally dismisses the 2600 citations (double standards, double jeopardy). The 2600 is an angry voting block that could restore women in local government. Maybe even a landmark female minority mayor.

#5 Mike Lee Zitterich on 05.04.22 at 11:58 am

You do not need an attorney to enter into an agreement. Landowners have much pull, voting rights are grounded in ‘landownership’, the city cannot do a thing without discussing the matter first with the landowner, who controls the entire process, and residents who wish to adopt new zoning laws, or change the things must petition the landowner.

#6 VSG on 05.04.22 at 12:44 pm

What is it that they say?…. Oh yeah: “A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.” (Although, I’ve been that fool before and still won. 😉 )

#7 Mike Lee Zitterich on 05.04.22 at 2:34 pm

Interesting, a person can be ‘educated’ in law, enough to defend his position of standing on his own defense. This is a lost art today. Today, to many are so willing to pay the services of an Attorney At-Law to speak for them, which only binds you to the system itself, but yet, are unable to ‘educate’ vesting themselves personally in the law providing them the knowledge of standing on their own defense. Perhaps you pay a “lawyer” to help provide you the law, but in the end, you should be able to stand on your own defense, especially in “contractual discussions” of working with City Government as it relates to annexing your property into city limits. It is not like annexation requirs a public court room in the matter. I mean, all you are doing here is negoicating what services you wish to utilize, how you wish your land to be developed, yet alone, allowing the city to use public tax dollars to connect city streets to your private streets, etc. You really need an Attorney for that? Perhaps at the very least you need a lawyer to help ‘draft’ the legal documents, but that does not cost much at all, does it?

#8 D@ily Spin on 05.04.22 at 2:40 pm

The city can’t enforce ordinances. The judicial ordinance doesn’t allow appeals into court. Their charter has been decided unconstitutional. They’ll harass you with all sorts of devious tactics including recruiting your neighbors against you. For me it’s humorous. What bothers me is how they deviously disrupt the lives of the citizens they supposedly represent. Defund city hall. Merge with the county.

#9 D@ily Spin on 05.04.22 at 2:51 pm

?Smile tho your sidewalk’s cracking?

Biden reminds me of Jeff Dunham’s ‘Walter’. Am I right?

#10 Mike Lee Zitterich on 05.04.22 at 4:33 pm

Are you actually by your comments supporting the “Dissolvement” of the city itself? So you are willing to sell off all public properties, payoff all city debts, liabilities, obligations, and proportioning al the profits left over to the remaining Landowners/property holders … With a “net position” of nearly $2 billion dollars, thats gonna be a huge payout to the landowners.

#11 D@ily Spin on 05.04.22 at 9:56 pm

A half billion annual budget gets steered to oligarchs, the mayor, developers, and the council. Two billion is hardly reimbursement for 24 years of corrupt Strong Arm Charter.

#12 Fear & Loathing in Sioux Falls on 05.05.22 at 2:51 pm

“…. With a “net position” of nearly $2 billion dollars, thats gonna be a huge payout to the landowners….”

Then the apocalyptic moment begins. I am going to use my proceeds to buy a Hummer and begin to patrol my neighborhood in a post-street cleaner world…. Wait a minute, isn’t that world already here?

#13 VSG on 05.05.22 at 2:56 pm

Mike, you have watched way too many late night infomercials sponsored by Larry’s Late Night Legal Clinic & School.

#14 Fear & Loathing in Sioux Falls on 05.05.22 at 3:01 pm

There were no infomercials before Reagan. He got rid of the three minute max rule for commercials. And since then, the GOP has been trying to sell us nothing but continuous nonsense.

Speaking of that, have you seen the new infomercial with Newt and home title protection? Apparently, people are stealing other people’s homes with nothing but a quit claim title change at the courthouse. What if the Feds do that to us with the Aquatic Center? Will Newt help? Help us, that is? Is he entitled to help us? Is he even entitled to a fourth wife?