I still think this is too little too late and most voters have had their mind made up for months. But you also have to question a sitting councilor(s) sharing his opinion on a ballot measure. I remember when that backfired when councilors and the sitting mayor were against the Drake Springs outdoor pool vote.
I also laugh when people talk about WF not smelling. Oh, it will smell. I grew up on a hog farm. Hogs stink. Ironically though, we will never know if WF smells or not, since Smithfield’s stink will always be waffling in the air above and beyond anything coming from WF.
A public parking ramp that took nearly a decade and more than $20 million to build in downtown Sioux Falls could be sold to a private developer.
During a Tuesday informational meeting at Carnegie Town Hall, city councilors urged Mayor Paul TenHaken’s administration to consider all options when picking a new partner to build at the Mall Avenue and 10th Street site.
And that includes selling the entirety of the seven-story ramp that opened in July 2020 and is equipped to handle up to eight additional stories. The site has gone undeveloped since a mixed-use parking ramp project fell apart in 2019.
I do agree with councilors that they should take the best deal and I also agree with councilor Soehl that we need to use a 3rd party to vet the investors properly. I am also partially in agreement with what councilor Merkouris said;
Rich Merkouris said he’s apprehensive about giving any tax breaks to the eventual buyer unless they use the space to add residential stock downtown.
“For me personally, I would struggle incentivizing anything outside of housing unless it was a part of the bigger package,” he said.
I would go a step further and say there should be NO incentives. Anyone who takes over this property is being given a site in a plum location with an opportunity to do well. The taxpayers have already incentivized this project, there is absolutely NO reason to hand out more candy. Find an honest free market developer who has a solid plan to make it successful, then you don’t need to worry about tax incentives. It was also pointed out it is in an opportunity zone which means there will be some incentives to build there without city tax payers help.
But what what really pissed me off was having councilor Selberg sit in on meetings and negotiations for future use. NO councilor that helped approve this pile of sh!t should be involved. It should either be handed over to a new councilor or Pat Starr who opposed this. It would be like hiring the guy who rear ended your car to fix it. Any councilor who approved this should not be in closed door meetings trying to cover up their mistakes. We need councilors with a clear conscience to negotiate this deal with a focus on hyper transparency.
These knuckleheads learn very little from past mistakes.
It has often been confusing to me over the last couple of election cycles sitting councilors have been hosting public fundraisers for challengers to incumbent councilors. I can understand that you may not like the incumbent you serve with and you certainly have a 1st Amendment right to speak publicly about it and even donate money to their opponent. But you do have to question the integrity and ethics of these councilors who will openly HOST a fundraiser that is challenging the incumbent, and using their official titles as councilors on the media promoting the event.
The irony is the incumbent is probably one of the most qualified city councilors we have ever had, working several years in the law offices of city hall. You also have to factor in their dedication towards open government and transparency. But what makes the other councilors (and three of the Mayor’s campaign GOONS, with a sprinkling of bankers, bonders and trusters) support of this candidate puzzling to me is that the incumbent has always been in lock step with the rest of the council on most issues, especially when it comes to development and growth.
So while she may still make it into the rubber stamp club on occasion, I think her questioning of the administration and especially their confused and inept legal counsel, it disqualifies you from the club, so they need a new member; A physician that has ZERO experience when it comes to planning, litigation and long term strategic planning. A perfect fit for the rubber stampers.
As a person who actually has followed council legislation for around 20 years, I am pretty good at calculating how much ‘work’ is put into the job. But some of them seem to pad the numbers;
Most councilors have outside jobs and work at least 30 hours a week for the city. Doing the math at the current pay, a city councilor currently makes $12.57 per hour.
I’ll guess the reporter didn’t come to this estimate on her own, I’m sure it is what she was told. I will admit I have known councilors over the years that have committed way more then 30 hours a week to the position, there are at least three of them now that put in at least that or more. But if you just calculate face time on the dais (official public meetings) with actual interaction with constituents, the math comes to about 10-15 hours a week. There are three things I would consider ‘work’ when it comes to councilors time; 1) Public meetings, 2) research, education, document review and legislation creation and 3) responding to constituent phone calls and emails. Going to community events and eating free donuts and lunches with business people that are trying to influence your vote doesn’t fall under ‘work’ more like a fringe benefit. It’s easy to figure out who fully spends time doing these things and those that don’t just by watching discussion and how easily things pass. I think some councilors think ‘work’ is concocting deals behind the scene with each other and business friends is part of the job, I know the last mayor certainly thought that, but that is a perk and NOT a job duty.
I just find it extremely ironic that one of the laziest councilors who hasn’t had an original idea since he graced the dais is the one proposing a 30% raise.
I also don’t think the salary of councilors is what is holding people back from running;
Sioux Falls City Councilor Marshall Selberg hopes to attract more people to public service in the future, as Mayor or on the Council.
“We want the best and the brightest in this job, and quite frankly, compensation as a part of that conversation,†said Selberg.
It is what it costs to run for the office that seems to break records every election cycle that is a deterrent. Jensen raised $127K and only beat Stehly by under a 100 votes. How does an average person like a mechanic or call center rep even compete with that? They can’t. They don’t want these kind of people on the council and that is why the banksters, developers and bondsters pad the campaigns to keep the average citizen off the dais, it happens in school board races also. I have argued for a long time that the city races should be publicly funded to even the playing field and base the campaigns on the best ideas not who has the most yard signs. Money in the local races is the rot that is holding back true constituent advocates. Just think if we took that 30% raise ($245K increase in the first year) and spent it on publicly funded campaigns instead? I think we would get much more bang for our buck.
I also sent this email response to Mike Zitterich and the city council after Mike suggested we base Mayoral pay on CAFR;
Mike, Let’s look at some data.
Average median pay for individuals in Sioux Falls is $33,500
Average CEO pay is $143,000 (9%)
Highest CEO pay is $182,000 (4%)
Highest percentage (20%) is $80,000
But public leadership should NEVER be compared to private leadership. CEO pay is based on how well a company’s profits perform. The city is not a ‘company’ it is a ‘service’. I tell you all the time, local government is easy, collect taxes, provide services, be transparent.
If you compare mayoral and city manager pay in the region (Fargo, Des Moines, Lincoln, Omaha and Minneapolis) it varies between $100-$200. Minneapolis mayor makes $126,000 with a population of 430K+ but the 13 city councilors run the city and he only has jurisdiction over the police.
There are different forms of government so it is complicated, but as far as I can tell no one bases pay on the population or the CAFR. It is pretty obvious that the SF proposal is based on paying the mayor $1 per person and not on actual regional data.
Even if you look at director pay in the region for example Lincoln, NE which has a population of 283,000 about the highest a director can make is around $150,000 with most in that $80-90K range.
Let’s face it, if this would have been researched better and an actual comprehensive study was done (I did basic research in 1 hour), the result would be that the mayor and council is already being well compensated and further more that directors make quite a bit more regionally, this is without factoring in the lower cost of living in Sioux Falls. Does anyone actually believe the mayor’s salary should be 6X more than the average citizen in this community? I don’t and I would suggest you withdraw this proposal and start from scratch with real data and study before you experience the humiliation at the ballot box when most voters will reject this handily.
Maybe Paul is waiting to break $100K before he officially announces so he knows for sure the super rich in town still support him and cruise control government
Tonight at the Findings of Fact special meeting of the Sioux Falls city council, Councilor Brekke offered an alternative resolution (above) of NOT dismissing Neitzert, but also not punishing him. After Councilor Starr seconded the motion, himself, Brekke and Selberg voted for it, which was a reversal of what Selberg voted for at the end of the original hearing.
Not sure why?
I thought at first maybe he misunderstood the vote (he was attending the meeting via phone), but I am not sure that was the case, because he paused and sighed before voting for it (which tells me he supported it) after it failed in a 3-4 vote, Selberg did vote for the dismissal, Brekke and Starr did not.
If Selberg needed clarity on the amendment he could have asked for it before the vote, he did not, he also could have rescinded it immediately after the vote or even at the end of the meeting, he did not. I’m curious what his change of heart was?
Maybe it was my testimony? LOL. In which I pointed out that throughout the findings it is clear he violated the ordinance. So why the dismissal? Never did get any discussion from the entire council on why they felt a dismissal was appropriate and we likely never will.
But there was also a strange moment in which Councilor Neitzert’s wife testified. I won’t disparage her, I’m sure it’s not easy being in her position, and I sympathize with her, I also wonder how many times she has asked Greg to just accept what he did and move on.
But she made a reference to people on Facebook questioning their family life, finances and even marriage. Whoaaa! I had never heard this.
Listen folks, while Greg did violate the ordinance, this wasn’t a capital offense, I even said in my testimony that he doesn’t deserve punishment, just accept what you did and apologize.
Sometimes politics can get personal, but this action by Greg wasn’t personal, it was just an ethics violation of city law. Pretty black and white.
Either the majority of the council who voted to dismiss this is really corrupt or really freaking stupid.
• Cynthia Mickelson seems to have a challenger, Sarah Stokke is a nursing instructor at the University of South Dakota. I am not familiar with Sarah, but I have heard her name before in certain circles. This will make two races for the citywide ballot, but the interesting twist is that NOT everyone voting for this race can vote in the city election because the boundaries are different. In other words there will be people who can ONLY vote for school board or ONLY vote for At-Large council. I know, complicated.
• Marshall Selberg (SW District) and Pat Starr (NE District) do not have challengers, so they will get 4 more years.
• Greg Neitzert has a challenger, Julian Beaudion (NW District). This is a district seat only and not city wide.
• Theresa Stehly and Alex Jensen will challenge each other for the At-Large position. Since there are only two, their will be no run-off election (The ‘Stehly Rule’ won’t be used again). This will be the ONLY city-wide position on the ballot besides the Charter Amendments (and those living in the SFSD who can vote for school board).
I suspect a very low voter turnout of about 5%. The interesting part is this will be one of the most expensive elections in city history for only having two horse race. All precincts will be used, and the money Jensen plans on spending will probably be a record for a council race (the rumors going around are $200-250K). I’m not even sure how you can spend all that?
But this will be fun to watch, because all the attention will be on the At-Large race. This will give Stehly the advantage, besides her incumbency.
Next week’s City Council meeting agenda item concerning the Canterbury – Paddington development is bringing up ethical concerns. (Watch the fiery exchange at the last planning meeting, items 5B-C). The adjacent property owners wondered why the planning department and planning commission ignores it’s own ordinances. The short answer; MONEY & GREED. The only reason the SFPC gave (and their typical answer when big money development rolls up to the podium at these meetings) is they own the land they can do what they want to. Sounds great, I think I will get started on my nuclear reactor in my backyard this summer – neighbors be damned. But make sure you put up a sign warning about bees in your yard! You know, those naturally occurring insects that provide life giving pollination.
It appears there will at least two conflict of interest issues which might be raised and at least two recusals may likely be needed.
Mayor TenHaken’s Next Generation Leadership PAC has Joel Dykstra involved in the management of the campaign / PAC organization. Joel will be asking for a RE-ZONE and PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN approval from the city council after the Planning Commission already approved it.
Councilor Selberg works for Van Buskirk Companies. The company was involved turning this development into a cluster to begin with by not finishing a promised road in the beginning of this development.
As we research more business connections, we see potential conflicts and believe full disclosures with recusals are required. Hopefully Marsh and Pauly will be recusing themselves next Tuesday on this item. If they don’t there could be legal and ethical ramifications from the adjacent property owners. We will see if they do the right thing.
Some may think serving 4 years on the city council may be difficult, not if you don’t really do anything;
“Serving this City has been an honor and the learning experience of a lifetime.  I look to build on this experience, put it to use, and continue to give Sioux Falls my very best.â€
Yes, Marshall’s ‘Best’ is showing up to the Tuesday meeting, trying not to fall asleep, repeating what Erickson and Kiley said, grabbing his gigantic rubber stamp, then going home.
He has been completely ineffective and needs to go. Please someone run against him!
It's setting up to be another hot day in much of KELOLAND. However, we do have a better chance of scattered rain this afternoon across the east. More on the that story in moment. Highs yesterday reached the mid 90s in many areas from Aberdeen to Sioux Falls, a growing sign of the dry weather […]
