We saw it this past time around in the school board election where an outgoing board member recruited a replacement.
Now Sioux Falls city councilor Cole is chairing the campaign of an At-Large council candidate that wants to replace her. It doesn’t really matter who he is because he will NOT be getting my vote. I will spread the news about this unethical behavior.
• Councilor Cole is NOT running for re-election, in other words she is quitting but wants to make sure she can pick a replacement.
• This is highly unethical and not sure why local yocals are doing this lately (Poops was precedent on this).
• As a highly skilled medical doctor, Cole should know this is unethical behavior.
Guess who decides who will serve us on the council? THE VOTERS!
While it is certainly NOT unethical to advise this candidate or even volunteer for his campaign, recruiting him, endorsing him publicly and chairing his campaign isn’t right.
I hope Sux wakes up before the next election and start looking at candidates for who they are ETHICALLY instead who racks up the most donations and endorsements.
I also heard another candidate running for council MAY HAVE put down a false address. I will investigate and update (from what I found so far, he lives at the address listed on his campaign finance forms.
The city council is set to increase property taxes tonight by 2.9% which is allowable by state law, but look how the city is ‘twisting’ this ‘option’;
This ordinance shows the 2026 budget for the Governmental (tax supported) Funds for calendar year of 2026, and the required revenues and sources to support the expenses.
In other words they created the 2026 budget assuming the city council will pass the property tax increase. So what if they don’t? That means the finance department would have to adjust the budget, which is what GOOD GOVERNMENTS do. The city council doesn’t have to pass this tonight and have NO requirements by city or state law to pass a property tax increase. ZILCH. Not to mention with the way the economy is going right now it would be one of the WORST times to increase property taxes.
How the city council votes on this will show the true colors of the individual councilors. While 99% of the community is hollering to lower our property taxes it will be interesting to see which councilors are ignorant enough to support this increase. I have no doubt it will pass, it always does with usually 2 dissenters but I have a feeling the vote is going to go a little different this time, but if 4/4 occurs Mayor Lame Poop will break the tie to increase taxes. He has never cared about the little man and he ain’t going to start now. I hope it goes to a tie vote so he owns this tax increase.
I will also be curious to see if these folks who show up to every county commission meeting to bitch about property taxes will come to the council meeting for a good reaming. This is 1st reading, so I don’t expect to many comments, but hopefully at least 5 councilors will look in the mirror before entering the dais and shoot this down tonight so it never makes a 2nd reading.
Update: I guess there was a HS cross country event at Paisley park today, so why can’t they run on unmulched grass? The Romans used to run races barefoot. So now I guess we fund HS sports thru parks tax dollars.
FIRST, THE POSITIVE: The Sioux Falls city council and Minnehaha County Commission restored 2026 funding for the Siouxland Librairies at their joint meeting today. Guess how much the mayor was cutting? A whopping $250K!!!! Yeah, a lot of coin for us mouth breathers but NOTHING to the city when you consider they have $80 Million in reserves (they are only required by ordinance to have about $50 Million cash on hand), but Poops has been stowing away money for his wet dream convention center). I was glad to see funding restored since all Poops cut was temp help wages.
I find it ironic that the mayor insists on nickel and diming citizen services while blowing MILLIONS on projects no one asked for (Sanford Wellness purchase and Jacobsen Plaza for example).
NOW FOR THE NEGATIVE: As I was commuting to work I decided to take the bike trail today and as I was riding thru Paisley Park I noticed the lawn had been freshly mowed. There were windrows (these are the piles of un-mulched grass that accumulate in ROWS) in the lawn. It was visible but NOT thick and would easily just disintegrate into the un-mowed grass with the next rain. So what did the Parks Department decide to do about these windrows? So there is this guy who drives down the bike trail with a tractor and a small blower he tows behind and he blows debris off of the trail. It’s a nice amenity and I appreciate it, just like the plowing of the trail in the winter. So this guy wasn’t blowing off the trail he was driving back and forth, North to South in the lawn blowing the windrows towards the East fence. My guess this would have taken at least 3-4 hours. So when the mayor talks about cutting essential services, maybe we need to cut the Parks budget, because apparently they have too much money to spend if they have a parks employee blowing grass around our parks (well, at least he was actually working unlike the parks worker who waters trees while reading a novel).
Also at thejoint meeting tonight if you FF to the end where there is public input, it is worth the watch. A woman came up, and very politely and professionally addressed them about property taxes, and she read them the riot act. It was amazing. She needs to come back to the city council meeting and do the same speech since the city’s TIFilicious desires are raising our taxes. She also recommended that TIFs and OPT-OUTS should only be approved by voters. DAMN TOOTIN! She was cut off by Dean Karsky (him and Beninga need to retire) because she called out Commissioner Joe Kipley personally* (you know, Mr. Conflict of Interest double dipping from taxpayers) and a comment he had made, and it was a doozy.
To be honest with you, public input really doesn’t matter anymore you might as well be talking to a floating turd in your toilet, you would get more of a response. The County, the Council and the School Board all have their votes in line and mind made up before they walk into that meeting, no amount of pleading or shaming will get them to change their votes. There have been on occasion a councilor will change on the fly, but not because of testimony. I felt sorry for the folks over the last few weeks who have shown up to speak for the first time about important issues like deportation and the homelessness only to get patronized by the mayor. Deaf ears folks.
*The council and commission have a rule(?) at their meetings that no one at the podium can call out elected officials or public employees by name or individually. Let’s just say it is a contrived rule probably in Roberts, but as far as the 1st Amendment is concerned, you can call out anyone you want to at the podium and all they can do is cry.
UPDATE: In a weird meeting where one of the Park’s managers apparently felt they needed to apologize to a board member for using the word BIKE instead of PEDESTRIAN we got to the bottom of what happened, this same manager confessed in a sheepish voice that ‘consultants’ came up with the detours. Well, that says it all. And why does the city use so many consultants when we have so much mid-management? Either have them do their job or get rid of them and stop depending on consultants and 6-figure managers who are glorified proofreaders. Speaking of bicycle and pedestrian safety in Sioux Falls, look at all the issues that have to be fixed, it’s like we have just ignored our pedestrian walkways for 20 years!
Typical of the city, talk about an issue after the fact. During the Active Transportation meeting scheduled for Wednesday at 8:30 AM at City Hall they will be discussing ‘Parks Trail Detour’. I hope commuters that were put off by the badly planned detours show up and express their displeasure on how this was handled. So you are going to discuss it after you failed? How about an apology so we can all move on.
SIOUX FALLS CITY COUNCIL CHAIR MERKOURIS LOVES TIFS!
During the budget hearing today Merkouris decided to put in his plug for TIFs and encouraging the state legislature to make the rules more lax to implement them. Here’s an idea Rich, how about throwing $50K at a public university so their economic department can study the ROI of TIFs in Sioux Falls. I have argued for years they would never do the study because it would reveal their ruse. Here’s your chance to prove me wrong 🙂
COUNCIL CHAIR STILL DOESN’T UNDERSTAND 1ST AMENDMENT
As the mayor stepped out early tonight for his annual jumping jack instructor dinner and charity auction, council chair Merkouris stepped in and struggled with his 1st Amendment knowledge. He cut off an inputer who dared to speak on a separate item already discussed. I’ll say it for the 1000th time; The chair of the meeting cannot cut you off for mere speech and the rules of the chamber only apply to those on the dais. The next time they try to cut you off, just ignore and keep talking. The entire council and mayor really need to take a course on the 1st Amendment, because they are clueless of the laws they swore to protect.
BIG HANDOUTS AGAIN TO DEVELOPERS
The city council agreed to lease parking for $1 a year to a stinky rich developer who didn’t plan for parking. That’s his problem and he can either pay a fair market value or forget about it. Jeffry Scherschligt the developer of Cherapa one and two decided he needed the parking because he is putting in a 20,000 square foot grocer. Kind of sounds like a for-profit business. So why would we give them a non-profit rate? Also, he claims he will do upgrades to the lot in exchange for the $1 a year. Better yet, give us receipts and we will reimburse you for the work thru deferred lease payments. Why on earth would we be giving it to them for nothing? Last I checked Jeff did this to make some money, so why aren’t we charging a going rate? Or better yet, he can buy the parcel and develop however he wants to. I have a feeling Jeff is doing this so he can secure the land once he has the money (I heard he is pretty stretched thin). Kind of hard to boot off a person who already did the improvements to the property, isn’t it? I wouldn’t even be surprised if he is angling to get the property for FREE in a few years. We have given this developer millions in tax payer upgrades to the river greenway, and here he is again at the trough, and we know why . . . he has no shame and the council rewards the welfare queens.
COUNCIL REZONES PROPERTY TO LIARS
So while the city won’t tear down the remaining properties on the MX Liquor lot, for gawd knows what reason, they have no problem spending $500K to demolish property for a religious non-profit who lied thru their teeth to get the demo money, and they reward the liars more by helping to cover up the lie by approving the rezone. They looked like a bunch of fools tonight, but that seems to be the typical theatre these days.
It seemed a majority on the council were suspicious of this deal and why we need to buy these maintainers BEFORE the yearly budget is approved. And for good reason. So the question that we ALL need an answer to is; ‘Was it the city’s idea to purchase the maintainers or the contractor?’ I don’t know, but the more that gets revealed it seems this deal was concocted and pitched to the city by the contractor wanting to ‘rid’ themselves of the used equipment. So why would they need to get rid of this equipment? Long story short, the contractor who leased the equipment had the contract tied to a major developer who is out of the business now. So did this contractor inform the city they were no longer going to do the lease? And while they were at it, did they offer the city this ‘deal’ to purchase the used equipment we have already been paying leases on? Yup, that’s right folks, they want to sell us the very equipment they have been leasing to us. So since they are apparently not in the business anymore and a major investor has passed away it seems like a sweetheart deal for the contractor and ANY investor he may have had. Be warned council, this isn’t being done to bail out the city, it is being done to bail out a contractor. No surprise, while there is nothing nefarious about the current lease agreement, you have to question the arrangement with the developer, the city and what goes on at the yearly ‘High Tea’ meetings. The city council needs to budget for a NEW lease agreement with a NEW provider after a RFP is put out. I hope the council comes to their senses and looks at the current lease agreement and who is listed on it.
l3wis 