Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council deadlocks on $4,800 GIS parcel update tied to proposed frontage tax
Summary
After extended public comment and council debate about a potential front‑foot assessment, the council voted on a $4,800 DGR task order to update parcel frontage data and the motion failed on a tie; councilors and residents disagreed on whether to pursue a new recurring fee or reallocate existing funds.
Dell Rapids City Council members and residents debated whether to spend $4,800 to have DGR Engineering update the city’s GIS parcel frontage measurements — information proponents said would let residents compare a possible front‑foot assessment against other funding options. The council took public comment and ultimately the motion to approve the task order failed after a tie vote, with the mayor unable to break the tie because the matter was a financial consideration.
Proponents said the $4,800 contract would provide accurate frontage data that residents could use to evaluate options and that the cost is modest compared with the uncertainty of long-term surcharges. One council member argued the information would “give people that information so that they can then decide.”
Opponents — including multiple residents who addressed the council — said the proposal risked creating a new permanent fee and urged the council to first control spending. Mark Crisp, who identified himself for the record, criticized prior project management and said the idea of spending taxpayer money to implement a new tax was objectionable: “I find it silly that we're gonna spend $4,800 taxpayer money to implement a new tax. Dumbest thing I've ever heard,” he said. Other residents raised concerns that a frontage fee would be regressive, that rolling surcharges onto utility bills could be less transparent, and that previous projects had produced unexpected costs.
During deliberations councilors discussed alternatives (flat fees, using sales tax revenue or bonds) and technical accuracy (using county GIS data versus labor-intensive plats). After discussion the motion to approve the $4,800 task order amendment failed on a tie when the clerk read the roll; the agenda said the item would be referred if approved, but the tie vote means the council did not authorize the expenditure that night.
