SF City Council

First SF City Council candidate emerges

Mike Zitterich is running for central district city council. The election will either be next June or September. I also heard this will be a crowded race with the potential of 7 candidates running, which means a runoff.

I am filing this document today with the City Clerk Office. Mike Zitterich for Honest Government for the Central District. I will be updating my website in the near future to provide additional info.

I want to see from the City Council: 

  1. Financial Transparency, 
  2. Honest Government,
  3. I want to see more investigations done by the council of the government,
  4. I encourage a better dialogue/correspondence between city council and residents both during meetings, and outside the meetings,
  5. I see myself as the next Kermit Staggers, a strong opposing vote against large government bureaucracy’s, voices, more in line with residents,
  6. I want to see more planning and promoting of other Business Districts here in Sioux Falls ‘other than S.F.D.T’  – I want to urge other parts of the community to establish B.I.D organizations,
  7. I want to promote and push to change our T.I.F strategy, getting away from large projects to introducing smaller, single-family type projects 1 Block, 2 Blocks like the City of Sturgis, 
  8. I want to promote, and help lead to establish city-wide Natural Wildlife, Nature, Historic Program that introduces policies to promote our awesome natural wildlife, nature parks, our history, and the idea of adding camping and lodging parks throughout the city within our Department of Parks and Recreation, one that promotes Family and Youth Outdoor Entertainment. 

With your guidance, I would like input on how we could create a public office “Government Financial Transparency” to be made up of appointed members to audit and review ALL city departments, offices, agencies, all Nonprofits that take city funds, with the goal of trimming city expenses,, while using the savings to set aside and perhaps give back surpluses to the residents. 

With your guidance, I would like input on how to move forward with recommending changes to our charter that accomplishes two things – I want the City Attorney to become a “elected member” of the Governing Board, no longer appointed by a mayor, and one that services a 4 year term (two terms), while changing the charter to create a “odd numbered council” with no less than 2 At-Large Chairs, and any number of District Chairs (5, 7, 9, etc), with the Mayor and City Attorney as the other “Elected At-Large Chairs”. 

With your guidance, I would like input on the idea of creating an ordinance to make ALL “legal opinions” of the City Attorney Office to be public record, allowing residents to review them on the city website, just as the State Attorney General must do. This improves transparency, and hopefully urges the Attorney Office to be more accountable to the people, along with being elected. 

I also support lowering the 2nd Penny Sales Tax from 1.00% down to 0.75% to give back to the residents the chance to keep as much money in their pockets, and I urge the City of Sioux Falls to set the example on taking less property tax revenue, thus leading the charge to give back to the property holders the ability to invest in their properties, encouraging more residents to donate to the city treasury, private funds that could be appropriated by the City Council for future community projects such as flower gardens, community watch advisory committees, to public infrastructure supported by the residents. 

Mike Zitterich 

Omaha seizes control of Tzadik property

Mayor and City Council? Are you watching this? This is how you help and SERVICE your constituents;

The troubled City View apartments are in receivership — and may be headed toward a sale.

According to the court documents, City View’s owner owes the bank nearly $750,000 for past due interest, taxes, and insurance. Management originally borrowed $16.5 million but owe about $18 million in total.

The bank asked a judge to step in and have a third party manage the property, which is what led to the receivership.

Court documents indicate the bank requested the receivership hoping to satablize the apartments operations. It has also started a process that could lead to the sale of the property.

This should have happened in Sioux Falls a year ago. But with our piss poor state laws on consumer protection (more like business protection) they just kind of sit on their hands. And if you are really doing something THEN TELL US!

Looks like we are having a June municipal election in 2026

As you know, the council and mayor have to pick a new election date because our brain dead, barely on life support, clem, hillbilly, theocratic morons of a legislature decided they needed to f’ck with local control, and gerrymander an election. They really want cities to have their elections in June when mostly Republicans show up essentially gerrymandering a non-partisan election. They also know that most cities will pick the June date because their lazy ass public servants don’t want to stick around for a couple more months (like our mayor has been crying about for weeks). Also, June primaries are bad for voter turnout, mostly because only half of the constituents show up. So voter turnout would not be improved (their argument to move the election).

I took a poll of the council on this, and the results are NOT good. I will break you the news, the votes are just not there for a November election. I know some councilors are supporting a November election, but they have asked me to keep that to myself, which I will respect. Our mission is to convince at least 4 more councilors to support a November election and give good reasons why. You can CONTACT them HERE. Leave voicemails and emails telling them to support a November election. Time is of the essence, I think this will be on the agenda for the first meeting in May.

I think cities should have stand alone elections and if they promoted them properly they would be well attended. But when you have a Militant Closed Government Bozo running the city, the public is not only mis-informed, but simply NOT informed. Ignorant people only vote by accident.

Do ALL Downtown SF Businesses support Saturday metering?

The short answer is NO, and probably why they skirted this move administratively instead of bringing it in front of the council where DTSF businesses could air their grievances in the public square. I supported this based on 1) That DTSF (the org) reassured the council that DT businesses support this* 2) it will ONLY be on Phillips and you can still park for free in the ramps (which I think will gradually be used more due to the Saturday metering on Phillips).

*At first glance I am hearing that only about half of DTSF businesses support this, the rest are ‘wait and see’. This of course is from random conversations I had with DTSF business owners, workers in DTSF and some city staff. Nothing scientific.

I have no idea what kind of support it has.

Which brings us to the crux of the issue. Besides being the council’s duty to vote on new taxes and fees, and a First and Second reading would have allowed people who own businesses DTSF and work DTSF to share their opinions. Maybe most of them support it? I don’t know, and we never will because the process was not followed and the council, once again, allowed a precedent by the mayor’s office. Tsk! Tsk! I sometimes wonder if Trump is our shadow mayor.

Update: Did the Sioux Falls City Council approve Saturday metering in DTSF? Nope.

Update: I talked to some attorneys about this and they all disagreed with me on the tax issue. One attorney said it was a ‘government services fee’ basically you are leasing the space from the city so it is a fee. But they all agreed with me that the council really should have approved it in a 1st and 2nd reading so there would have been a public hearing before its implementation.

—————-

When I saw the story yesterday that they were going to start metering on Saturdays I wondered when the city council approved this. Well, they didn’t because they did not have to. According to charter, ordinances 77.080-77.082 gives the parking director and strangely the city engineer the authority to determine when they can charge these fees. A few months ago when they banned monster trucks in DTSF the council did discuss Saturday metering but never gave a timeline or even voted on it, so I was expecting a vote this Spring. But I would argue that it DOES NOT give the director the authority to make this move;

The director of public parking facilities shall establish the hours during the day and night when parking meters or gates must be used and when the time limitations shall be effective, 

Notice it says the director can determine the TIMES during a specific day, but it DOES NOT give him the authority to pick the days of collection, which he did here, SATURDAY.

I would encourage an attorney with some free time to go DTSF and park at a meter on a Saturday, receive a ticket then challenge that ticket in court by saying the director didn’t have the authority to pick a NEW day to start metering.

There is also the labor involved. Obviously they had to hire some new people to watch the meters. Was this in the budget? Did the councilors approve that? I doubt it.

This is a MAGA move by our Mayor. You don’t have the authority to start TAXING constituents on a new day without the approval of the policy body which makes taxation decisions, because as Staggers once said, you can call it a ‘parking fee’ but let’s call it what it really is; a ‘tax’.

The parking division also has a revenue issue putting most of their yearly earnings into bond payments for that color fart bunker ramp. The parking division needs more money, and they are coming for yah. I have contended that the city make ALL parking DTSF FREE, 24/7 except meters on Phillips, I would have them running non-stop, 7 days a week, and I would charge $5.00 an hour. If you want people coming DTSF to shop, may I suggest more FREE parking in ramps.