Commission presses staff for updated timeline on Paradigm Technologies site after construction finished, business not open

The Yankton City Commission discussed Paradigm Technologies and a privately owned development on June 9, with commissioners asking staff to request an updated opening date from the property owner and to report back at a public meeting.

Why it matters: Commissioners said citizens and nearby business owners want clarity after the project missed its original spring 2024 opening target. The discussion focused on whether the city’s contract requirements were met, what the city can compel under that contract, and what lessons the city should take into future development agreements.

Commissioner Hunoff, who requested the agenda item along with Commissioner Conkling, said the commission should ask the owner for an “updated, anticipated opening date.” He noted the company did not yet have a sales-tax license and said the public expected answers after a year-long delay.

Ross (staff) summarized the city’s view of the original contract: the structure was built with required landscaping and aesthetic approvals and, from the city’s perspective, “the contract from the perspective of the city, is fulfilled.” He cautioned commissioners about making accusations or public statements that could expose the city or individuals to legal risk. “There really isn't any action for the commission to take,” Ross said, while noting the contract contains repurchase options and requirements tied to changes in use.

Commissioners sought clarification on what “occupied” means under the contract. Mr. Mingo, who addressed the commission from the public microphone, said the certificate of occupancy — if issued — indicates a building is approved for use. “Correct. And and the bar in that respect, with any project, any structure, is when the certificate of occupancy is issued, it's, that building is deemed occupied,” Mr. Mingo said.

Commissioners asked staff to follow up with the owner for an updated timeline and requested a public report at a future commission meeting rather than an off-agenda, private update. One commissioner also asked staff to arrange a commissioners-only tour of the facility if the owner agrees.

Ending: The commission treated the item as discussion-only; staff agreed to request information from the owner and to return with an update at a public meeting so the public can hear the status.