Council defers condemnation resolution for North Marion Road; residents raise drainage, timeline and funding concerns

The Sioux Falls City Council on June 17 deferred consideration of a resolution of necessity to begin condemnation proceedings for property needed on the North Marion Road third-phase project after residents raised drainage and property-impact concerns.

Amanda Ingle of the City Attorney’s Office told the council the resolution would authorize the city to commence condemnation proceedings for parcels required for the project and said construction is planned to begin in 2026 with a bridge element built in 2027. “The portions of these properties are necessary for drainage and then also just construction of this development,” she said.

A nearby property owner, Patty Guthrie, told the council she and her husband built a home and established a large tree and pond area about 30 years ago and that recent development and proposed culvert work would route more water onto their property. Guthrie said she did not sign the city easement and asked the city to consider alternative drainage routing to avoid increasing runoff onto her lawn: “We foresee a lot more water coming through there, crossing under the road to our property.”

Mark Hatter of Public Works said a drainage study is part of the arterial street design for the project and staff would follow up with the resident and council on specifics. “As a part of this, arterial street design, there’s a drainage study associated with it,” Hatter said, and staff offered to meet with property owners to seek equitable solutions.

Public commenters also addressed the use of eminent domain. Michael Stangland said that while eminent domain is “never a pretty thing,” it can be the “necessary evil” when used for a true public road project rather than private gain. Robert Colby raised legal questions about state rules for runoff and culvert changes and urged the council to ensure requirements are met.

Councilor Sale asked whether the drainage study addressed anticipated impacts and whether mitigation options existed; Hatter repeated that the study is included and staff would provide details to council and the affected property owners. Councilor Schell noted the city is short a $25 million grant that had been expected for the bridge component and urged caution; he suggested the timetable should not force an immediate vote without more information.

After discussion, Councilor Sale moved and the council seconded a motion to defer the resolution to the July 8 meeting so staff could provide additional drainage information and meet with property owners. The motion to defer passed 8–0.

City staff said the resolution remains necessary to meet the overall project timeline but that staff will follow up with the resident on the drainage report and potential mitigation options prior to the next council meeting.

The council did not adopt condemnation authority on June 17; the resolution will return on July 8 with requested follow-up information about drainage impacts and project funding.