The Sioux Falls City Council voted 7-0 July 15 to award a $113,742 contract to Runge Enterprises to demolish the former South Dakota Department of Social Services building on property the city acquired July 1 as part of Riverline District planning.
City officials said the structure is dilapidated, has drawn repeated police calls since it was vacated, and poses public-safety and nuisance risks; the administration told councilors the demolition will return the parcel to a “site development–ready” state while the city continues planning for possible reuse. The city plans to pay the demolition costs from the entertainment tax fund.
City officials say safety and maintenance drove the decision. Director Pritchett told the council a cross‑departmental team inspected the building and concluded reuse without major investment was unlikely; Sioux Falls Police Chief John Toome told the council his office recorded 21 calls for service at the site since May 1 and that vacant, unmaintained properties tend to attract activity that is “hard to manage or mitigate.”
The administration apologized to council members for not communicating earlier that a demolition was being considered. Pritchett said staff initially told the council they would not raze the building unless a reuse plan existed but that the city subsequently assembled a team to evaluate operational reuse and security risks after acquisition; that team recommended demolition.
Several members of the public urged the council not to equate removing the building with solving homelessness. Sierra Versailles warned the council the action was part of “gentrifying the neighborhood” around downtown and said a planned convention-center project could displace people experiencing homelessness. Tim Stanga asked how much the city would spend on demolition and questioned whether the structure could be repurposed for shelter or mental‑health supports; Catherine Bridal, an advocate for people experiencing homelessness, said demolition alone would not address underlying service needs.
Council members pressed city staff on near‑term uses for the cleared site. Pritchett said returning the lot to grass and holding it for future planning would “improve the neighborhood” and reduce the policing burden. Councilor Bassey asked whether taking the building down would change conversations about future reuse; staff replied the demolition would not preclude future redevelopment decisions but would address immediate security concerns and remove a structure likely to require eventual removal during redevelopment. Pritchett said the entertainment tax balance is strong and that using that fund for the demolition would not affect other city services.
Council discussion acknowledged a communications lapse but emphasized public‑safety and future planning benefits of removing a failing structure. Councilor Spellerberg and others said the site would be easier to secure and maintain as an open parcel than as an abandoned building. The motion to award the demolition contract was moved by Spellerberg, seconded by Barranco, and passed unanimously on a roll-call vote.
How the site will be used long term remains undecided. The administration said demolition is intended to preserve options for future redevelopment as city planning for the Riverline District continues; any specific reuse, including a convention center, would require further public hearings and council action.