(Editor's note: This is just one part of a series of stories about local candidates in the upcoming June 2 primary, municipal and school board election. Find more coverage here.)
Simplified: Residents will weigh in on five proposed changes to the City Charter, the governing document for Sioux Falls. Here's a simplified look at those proposed changes, and what your vote either way would mean for the city.
Why it matters
- Sioux Falls has operated under a "home rule" charter since 1994. Essentially, it means the city has its own governing document and can make the rules that it wants as long as those rules don't conflict with state or federal law.
- The only way to make changes to the charter is through a public vote. That means even things like typos or updating dates (which will come into play in this year's proposals). It also means the public gets to decide if and when the policies governing the city are updated.
- Each election year, the city's Charter Revision Commission takes a close look at all of the charter sections and listens to proposed amendments – which are submitted both by city offices and by individuals in the community.
Is this story helping you feel smarter about the 2026 election? Support Sioux Falls Simplified in bringing smarter, easier local news to our community.
What are the proposed amendments?
Amendment A: Updating dates
What it asks: Shall City Charter §§ 2.02(c), 3.02, 5.02, 5.05(c), 5.11(a), 6.01, and 9.05(a)-(f) be amended to eliminate any obsolete date provisions while allowing the city council to set those dates by ordinance?
What that means: This amendment is looking to update the charter by removing specific dates – related to elections, council/mayoral term start dates and the timeline for the city budget – in favor of less specific timelines. The change would remove specific dates to align with changes to state law. The description calls these "obsolete dates."
- A 'yes' vote: would update the charter with more vague dates and eliminate the outdated ones.
- A 'no' vote: means the charter stays as written, but the city still has to follow state law, so the dates in the charter will just be wrong.
Why this amendment is proposed now: In 2025, the state legislature voted to require municipal elections to align with either the June primary or the November general election. Sioux Falls City Councilors then voted to have city elections coincide with the June primary.
- But, the charter still says the election will take place in April – like it has for the last 30 years. Since the state law changed, the charter is proposing a chance to align with state law.
- The story is very similar with the budget timeline changes in this proposed amendment. The state used to require budgets be approved by Sept. 30. Now, they just have to be approved anytime before November.
Amendment B: Finance clean-up
What it asks: Shall City Charter §§ 5.05(b) and 5.07(e) related to city council action on the budget and any amendments thereto be amended to read: (and then it lists specific updates).
What that means: This amendment is an ask from the city finance office to essentially update the charter to reflect how the city actually budgets.
- Right now, the charter doesn't specifically state that the budget includes money left over from the year prior. This amendment would update the language to specify the budget includes both income AND the fund balance carried over (except money designated for the reserve fund, i.e. the city's savings account).
- A 'yes vote' fixes the run-on sentence and adds the leftover cash to the budget equation (something the city is already doing)
- A 'no' vote means nothing changes and the typo stays.
Why this amendment is proposed now: Because now is when the election is happening. The finance department asked the Charter Revision Commission to consider letting voters weigh in on the updated language – including fixing a run-on sentence.
Amendment C: Waivers for elected folks who want city jobs
What it asks: This amendment would add "unless granted a waiver by the Board of Ethics" to the city's prohibition on elected officials getting hired by the city within two years of being an elected official.
What that means: Right now, if a person ends their term on City Council, they can't just turn around and apply to be, for an example, director of a city department. They have to wait two years to get a job with the city.
- This amendment would allow a person to get a waiver from the Board of Ethics if they wanted to get a job with the city sooner than two years after leaving an elected office.
- A 'yes' vote means a City Councilor could leave the council and then turn around and get a job with the city – as long as the Board of Ethics says it's OK.
- A 'no' vote keeps the two-year prohibition on going from an elected office to a city salary in place.
Why this amendment is proposed now: City Attorney Dave Pfeifle told City Council back in March that the idea behind this amendment was to "expand the city's labor pool." He also noted that there've been a couple instances where someone's wanted to get a city job but haven't been able to because they served on the council too recently. He added that the Board of Ethics decision process on the waiver would be "very public."
Amendment D: More flexibility in council/mayor salaries
What it asks: This amendment would add the following text to the charter:
"The salaries for all members of the council, including the mayor, shall be established by ordinance and automatically adjusted annually pursuant to Section 2.04. Except for adjustments for inflation as provided in the preceding sentence, no ordinance varying the compensation for the mayor or other council members shall take effect for any office until a regular municipal election for such office shall have intervened. The ordinance establishing salaries as set forth in this section shall be subject to referendum as provided for other ordinances in state law. No meeting fees shall be paid to the mayor nor city council members."
What it means: This amendment would allow the City Council to, by ordinance, vote to raise or lower the salaries for councilors and for the mayor. Right now, the salary first set by the charter back in 1994 has just been updated annually based on inflation adjustments.
- If councilors do vote to give themselves a raise, they'll have to wait until after the next election for that raise to take effect.
- A 'yes' vote gives councilors more authority to raise their own salaries, and the mayor's salary, via ordinance – knowing that change wouldn't go into effect until after the next election.
- A 'no' vote means nothing changes, and councilors and the mayor will continue to get consumer price index adjustments.
Why this amendment is proposed now: This is another effort to remove some of the somewhat outdated specificity from the charter. Right now, for example, it lists the mayor's salary at $75,000 per year (written in 1994), with provisions for inflationary increases. This change takes that specific number out of the charter and puts it on the council to research and decide what those salaries should look like.
Amendment E: Fixing a typo
What it asks: Changes "falls" to "fails" in the phrase that currently reads: "If the council falls to do so within 30 days..."
What it means: There's been a typo no one has noticed for 30+ years.
- A 'yes' vote fixes the typo.
- A 'no' vote leaves it in the charter.
Why this amendment is proposed now: Former City Councilor and current Charter Revision Commission member Rick Kiley found the typo.
