Yankton commission rejects request to double mall sales-tax rebate after extended public debate

The Yankton City Commission voted 5-3 on Feb. 10, 2025 to deny a request to raise the sales-tax rebate cap for the Yankton Mall redevelopment from $1,700,000 to $3,400,000, after a presentation from the developer's representatives and an extended public comment period.

The measure would have amended Resolution 25-08, a previously approved 10-year sales-tax rebate and development agreement tied to the property known as the Yankton Mall. City staff member Dave Mingo introduced the item and explained the request; Ryan Tisdale of VanBusker Companies (the broker working on the project) and mall owner Matt Evans made the presentation and answered commissioners' questions.

Tisdale told the commission the initial $1.7 million rebate helped secure three national retailers — Hobby Lobby, Marshalls and 5 Below — and asked that the cap be increased to $3.4 million so the owner could finish landlord work for additional national tenants. "Without your assistance, we would not have been able to bring Hobby Lobby, Marshalls, and 5 Below to town," Tisdale said. He described co-tenancy requirements and long retail leasing timelines, and said filling the entire building would reduce the risk that individual tenant losses would trigger rent reductions or lease terminations for others.

Opponents and skeptical commissioners raised concerns about precedent, the timing of the request and the use of taxpayer-funded incentives for a privately owned property. One resident, who asked to be identified in the record only as a long-time critic of such giveaways, said, "I'm sick and tired of the giveaways," and urged the commission to protect public funds. Several commissioners noted they supported the original rebate that helped attract the three anchors but questioned returning less than a year later for the same dollar amount.

Several residents and local stakeholders spoke in favor of the request. Lindsay Jacobson, who identified herself as a Yankton resident, praised the visible improvements already completed at the property and urged the commission to allow the project to finish so the mall could fully serve the community. Jacob Olsen, executive pastor at Restore Church (a mall tenant), also urged support, saying the project was a "labor of love" for the owner and that the work has helped restore a long-vacant property.

Mall owner Matt Evans addressed the commission directly and asked for commissioners' trust. "Please put your faith in me," Evans said. "I want this town to be great. I don't want any of these stores...to be kicking anybody out of this town or taking people out of business." City staff warned that without the additional work the landlord requests, the building could remain partly vacant and co-tenancy language in tenant leases could increase exposure if one major tenant left.

City Manager Amy Leon and Economic Development staff explained that the eligibility language in the existing agreement requires that rebate beneficiaries be demonstrably addressing retail leakage (not merely relocating within the city) and that any question about eligibility could be brought back to the commission for a separate resolution.

After debate and public comment, the commission took a roll-call vote. The motion to approve the increase failed on a 5-3 vote (Weber, Hanoff and Minor voting yes; Benson, Brunick, Sarta, Villanueva and Mayor Pro Tem Mosher voting no). Because the measure did not pass, the existing rebate cap and the current terms remain unchanged.

Why it matters: Commissioners who opposed the amendment cited fiscal stewardship and precedent — several noted that the original $1.7 million rebate was a significant, atypical commitment and that a second, equal-sized increase would further reduce the city's sales-tax proceeds available for other uses. Supporters said the additional rebate would help secure a full roster of national tenants, protect the project's long-term viability and yield net sales-tax gains after the rebate period.

What’s next: The failed motion ends this request as presented; staff and the property owner can return with a revised proposal, or the owner can proceed without expanded city participation. The commission did not take further action on the item at the meeting.

Votes and motions tied to this item are recorded in the commission minutes.