South DaCola – Editorial Cartoonist from South Dakota

1st Amendment Code Enforcement Developers Development Downtown Sioux Falls Rich Merkouris SF City Council Sioux Falls

UPDATE: So NOW the city wants to address the detours on the bike trail

l3wis August 20, 2025 4Comments

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.

1st Amendment Downtown Sioux Falls Public Utilities Public Works SF City Council Sioux Falls snow removal Snowgates

City Council defers Snowplow purchases

l3wis August 20, 2025 2Comments

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.

Chamber of Commerce Sioux Falls Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce US Chamber of Commerce

Chamber Sponsored Livestock Show Ending

l3wis August 20, 2025 3Comments

This from a reader;

See the attached file which is a screenshot of a Facebook post by the Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce and a post reply from the 2025 chairperson of the 2025 Livestock Show.

Seems like she was somewhat blindsided by this decision. Chamber of Commerce operates from behind a shroud, lacking transparency, too apparently.

Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

Has the lack of transparency of city government influenced the local business community?

Or (seems more likely), has the lack of transparency endemic in the local business community permeated into the halls of city government?

I’m an ag guy, but not gung ho that the Livestock Show should / needs continue in Sioux Falls. I think things can get stale and be considered to have “run their course”. The Livestock Show might be one of those. I went to the show one afternoon about 15-20 years ago when a college friend’s kids were showing steers (and hogs?). I found the fairgrounds dreary af on a South Dakota January afternoon.

There a definitely fewer people directly involved in agriculture all around the state; fewer people involved in showing livestock. And there are definite cultural changes taking place in Sioux Falls. Much more bougie than when I moved here 24 years ago.

I just thought appearances are that someone made a unilateral decision and didn’t even bother to engage the people in the organization who ran it on behalf of the Chamber.

I know of Abby, and I can say she is a person who does her due diligence, and if she didn’t know, something’s up. After some local chamber staff resigned a few years ago I asked about any employment issues at the Chamber. Let’s just say it’s something many large orgs face and usually the ‘issue’ is eliminated, the problem in this case is that the ‘issue’ runs the joint. The show being retired probably had less to do with the show and more to do with the sponsor.

Sioux Falls Sioux Falls Parks and Rec Washington Pavilion

‘Cashless’ isn’t all it’s cracked up to be

l3wis August 18, 2025 4Comments

So the Pavilion, who is running the Lodge restaurant and bar at Jacobsen’s Plaza, has decided to go ‘cashless’. Not sure that is such a great idea considering a lot of people like to pay cash for a single cocktail or beer, but hey, I ain’t running the joint. So a compromise was to put in cash vending machines in the bathroom hallway (they also take credit cards). So I bought a pop with my debit card from the machine. According to the text on the machine there would be a 10 cent fee to use my card so the price would be $3.10. Well imagine my surprise when I just happened to look at my bank statement that night. They charged me $4.50! A $1.50 CC transaction fee! This is ridiculous. I already informed some city staff and hopefully they will address it.

1st Amendment Code Enforcement SF City Council Sioux Falls Sioux Falls Parks and Rec

UPDATE: Sioux Falls City Council Operations Committee recommends changes without a public meeting

l3wis August 12, 2025 7Comments

UPDATE: Item #14, I guess we figured out why the city hasn’t continued demolishing the MX Liquor property, looks like he owes some money;

This is silly, put a lien on the property if he doesn’t pay for demolition and when the property sells the city will get it’s money. That property is in an Opportunity ZONE and they could easily get over $1 million for it. It is prime property for apartments and with it being a OZ a developer could get gobs of Federal Tax breaks for building it. I would encourage the current owner to look for a buyer or find a developer and lease the property. The city can still demo the remaining properties even if he won’t pay right away, we will get the money on the back end, and they know it. Ironically, they gave $500K to demolish a couple of blocks for a religious non-profit that lied thru their teeth to get it done. I would suggest going after that money before we worry about a slumlord who simply refuses to pay (he has the money).

Item #23, While the Operations Committee meets on occasion (they meet tomorrow to talk about a separate issue) they are making changes to the operations manual without addressing it in a public meeting. One of the many changes is letting the Mayor appoint certain board members and employees without the consent of the council. Not sure why they are ceding more power to the mayor’s office, but it explains why they didn’t announce it to the public in a meeting before the council meeting.

Item #10, They are moving forward with 2nd reading of the ball field in Harrisburg sponsorship without a dollar amount attached to the sponsorship. I have asked several councilors and other involved ‘How much is the sponsorship?’ No answer. While I get that they may not have all the bids in to determine how much the upgrades will be, they CAN put a cap or a minimum on the sponsorship without having the actual costs. This is NOT being done. This is the first time I have seen a park sponsorship with NO DOLLAR amount of that sponsorship included. Tells me the sponsor is only paying for a sign and that’s about it, if NOT, prove me wrong, and give us a dollar amount at the 2nd reading. Not sure why this is so top secret?

Item #11, The city council is moving forward with the campground ordinance, not sure if it will pass, but I am sure they have at least 4 votes and the mayor’s tie to pass this. Once again the council is giving in to the SFPD instead of creating ordinances that require them to do their job. Just because someone is the Police Chief, appointed by the mayor, doesn’t mean they have all the solutions in solving homelessness and the council should take lightly any advice he may give in solving this problem. The council needs to implement policy (their only job) that forces the SFPD to fix this issue. If they don’t want to follow the new ordinances, show them the door.

Item #12, Oh, the irony of this funding;

This ordinance is to supplement for $8 million to procure motor graders (currently leasing) and $1.8 million in network technology equipment to build out the data center to ensure a reliable and redundant network.

So in order to save a couple million on snow removal we have to spend almost $10 million to take over the service. I sometimes wonder if the peeps making these decisions are mentally challenged. You will see snow removal becoming less effective and a lot slower, if at all. In order for drivers that work for the city’s public works department to plow streets they will have to work a lot of double shifts and overtime, and if we get a big storm, it will be virtually impossible for them to keep up or complete the job in a timely manner. It’s going to be a bad winter for snow removal because of this change, but not sure how it could get worse. Remember the current snow plow chief had over a 100 car accidents in one day because he had his de-icing crew on pothole duty while it was raining ice. Should have been fired due to the millions in insurance claims and damage that was incurred on this day last winter.

MX Liquor Property; This isn’t on the agenda because the city is being very secretive about it. I have asked people in public works, the city attorney’s office and the entire city council, ‘When will the remainder be demolished?’ The deadlines have passed and the properties look even worse then when this process started. So did the city drop the ball on this? Why are the properties still standing? When the next mayor is installed, and if those houses are still standing, I will approach them on day two of their job and get them to finish the job. I can’t believe it took 20 years and 3 different mayor’s to get this done, and the mayor doesn’t want to lay off any city employees because they are so valuable. LMFAO!

You Missed