City Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome everyone to the Dell Rapid City Council regular session meeting dated September 21st, 2026. Welcome to those of you online and those of you here in person tonight. Clerk, will you please call the roll? Phelps? Here.

Hine? Here. Nelson? Here. Cavagelli? Here. Jones? Here. Ronsagen? Here. Ruesink?

Here.

Hanslick? Mayor Simmons? Here.

Please join me in saying the Pledge of Allegiance.

I'll look for a motion to approve the agenda. So moved. Is there a second?

Nelson 2nd, all those in favor say aye. Aye.

Motion carries. But I'd like to object to the agenda and call a point of order. Point of order is with the consent agenda. The consent agenda last week included hiring two bartenders and assigning a wage. when we were told of the consent agenda originally. It was to be used for as it is today, or to be used today, for claims and permits and that such, not approving any financial aspect of it. That was something Ms. Wendy, as my representative, asked and made sure of. And none of you objected to that last week during the consent agenda. Further, I support my objection. City Attorney, if you want to look it up, Section 218, rules and procedures for this, starting on page nine of the ordinances. I'm not going to read it verbatim.

I'll let the mayor make her decision on it. But the top says it shall. It explains exactly what you're allowed to do as a council.

With that being said, I'll go less than three minutes. With that going said, and three minutes only applies to open comment, just to let you know. It's never been applied to anywhere else. With that being said, nowhere in there is a consent agenda. Further, when I look back in the records, this was done verbally. There's no ordinance to change that ordinance. And if the city attorney says that we obey all laws and ordinances within the city, I suggest you start reading them and applying them. So with that, I'm asking for the consent agenda to be removed. And until the ordinance is properly written, Because I've asked, as I have previously, to be included on an agenda here to the city administrator, and I never got a reply. It included sample language of what it should be. I'm going to remind you that Brandon and Del's, now that she's here, are the only two that have this type of interpretation for a consent agenda, which doesn't allow any public comment prior to, so public doesn't get any recognition into it. Like I said, you misused it on the original thing that it was presented to the public and to the board about, and it's not included in the ordinance. Until the ordinance is properly changed, it should be basically a regular business item until it's done. Because it's not a may, you do not have discretion, it's a shall. I apologize for surprising you with this.

Thank you. As far as the consent agenda, I do kind of agree that we should be looking at these more closely. Honestly, I don't know what the procedure would be to remove these from consent agenda for the evening other than someone making a motion to remove them from consent agenda.

I guess make a ruling for future meetings until the ordinance is done properly, to be fair. Because like I said, I've already conceded and agreed. Today's use is appropriate based on what was presented to both the board and to the public in the past. I don't have an issue with that.

At this point, I'm okay to move the claims to the old business or new business. I would assume it would be new business. Am I correct on that?

Like I said, I can see that, but I'm looking forward for future.

Great. Yeah, we did approve the agenda. I don't know what I'm thinking. Anyway, thank you, Dave. We'll address this next time. Thank you. At this point, I would look for a motion to approve consent agenda. I'm sorry. Approval of the minutes. Oh, my goodness. I'm all over the place. We approved the agenda.

We have an approval of the minutes. Okay.

Move to approve the minutes from last meeting.

Is there a second to approve the minutes from? Second. All those in favor of approving the minutes, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed nay. Motion carried. At this point, visitors, if you would like to come forward, please do so now. Hearing none, seeing none. Moving on. Public hearing resolution 2026-23 special assessment roll on nuisance abatements.

These are, cities are able to assess nuisance fees that have not been paid and we assess it to the county taxes so then they make sure as long as they're paying their taxes they're getting paid because they have to be paid first. So I'm just doing some kind of cleanup work of those that were outstanding. So this resolution would be the three that have been notified back when they were, the fees were assessed and I notified them again in July and they were notified

10 days prior to this notice as well.

They do have 30 days to pay after we approve this tonight, and then I will send it to the county.

At this point, we'll entertain a motion.

So moved.

Is there a second? I'll second that. Any further discussion? Hearing none, seeing none, all those in favor of the resolution 2026-23 special assessment say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion carried. Moving on to the consent agenda. I will entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda as written.

Move to approve.

Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, seeing none, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. Motion carried. Moving on to Old Business. Second reading, Ordinance 961, Creating a Pool Advisory Board.

I don't really have anything to add. We've talked about a few meetings. I did put a timeline in there just so it was out there. The effective date would be October 16th. We'll advertise on the 16th and October 23rd. We'll set a timeline of November 4th, and we'll have it at the potential November 16th meeting for approval of those board members.

At this point, no entertain motion.

So moved.

Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion on creating a pool advisory board? All those in favor of creating a pool advisory board, say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carried. Moving on, second reading, Ordinance 962, the 2027 budget. I'll entertain a motion.

Nelson, so moved.

Is there a second?

Aye and second.

Is there any further discussion? All those in favor of the 2027 budget say aye. Opposed nay. Motion carried to approve the 2027 budget. Moving on. Second reading ordinance 963, parking during snow removal alert. Anyone have anything on this one?

I don't think there's an additional. Okay.

I'll entertain a motion. Cavatelli moves. Do we have a second? Second.

All those in favor of the ordinance 963 parking during snow removal alerts say aye.

Aye.

Opposed nay. Motion carried. Moving on. Speed limit. I'm sorry. Speed signage update and purchase request. I believe we had. Clarence, were you going to talk on that? No.

I can start. Steve is recommending, and Clarence as well, just buying the one from Stalker Radar Speed Sign. And then Clarence has worked on the DOT permit to occupy right away in Long Highway 115. So that's where we're at with that.

Okay. I have a question probably for Clarence on placement. Are you doing okay? All right. I worry about you. Is it going to be north of the 35-mile-an-hour speed sign now?

Clarence Villinger, Public Works Director. I just emailed the regional engineer, Mitchell. When I get out of that email, it's got to be on the same side as that 35, kind of like the one in Renner. Same side? Yes, where the 35 sign is, it's going to be right attached to that. Oh. It's got to be on that speed sign or next to it. Okay. That way you can see the speed sign plus what you're doing.

Okay.

And we sent a map to the exact spot where we're going to put it, the $35 sign. They got to look at it. So just a four mile.

Okay. So it's going with the 35. That's what I was hoping, the 35, not the 55. No, correct. Okay. Thank you.

And hopefully we'll hear back within a week or so.

And then will you place that? Yes.

Okay. We just got to get their blessing to put up the denture.

Okay.

Just a formality is all it is for the most part. The one question I don't know if you can answer it.

I emailed Steve today not realizing that he was gone today. On the reporting side of the sign, I looked at their website, and it said you can either buy this module, this data module, or connect it to a Wi-Fi.

Most of them are that way, the way it seems. You can do Bluetooth tracks, how many cars come by, and the percentage of speeders. And that was my question, is the Wi-Fi, I don't know what Wi-Fi we would connect to. It's called, at least the way it sounds to me, like a 4G cell phone type. And there's a fee to it, of course. It's a yearly fee.

That's over $1,000. Each one varies a little bit. Because that was my main point on this whole thing is when we're sitting here next year looking at how are we going to know the effectiveness of this sign? You can track all that if you choose to go that route. Yeah. And this one, so we will have that connectivity with the quote that we received. Okay, perfect.

So that's a portion of what we are ordering?

Yes, it is. That will be included in it, yeah. It's a plus $3,000 a year. to connect to the Wi-Fi part of it.

And we plan on attaching it to the cloud and gathering info. Yes. Okay.

Yeah. In summary, better than computers and I can go track all that stuff.

Okay.

Okay. Yeah. I think when they actually do speed, it'll say, it'll flash what you're doing, and then it'll say slow down. That's one of the mandates the state requires.

If we choose not to pay that $1,000 fee in the future, does the speed limit part still work?

It'll still work.

You just can't track no data.

Correct. There's some kind of a, I'm sure you guys have an agreement of some sort. They'll track that and you can receive that data.

So the data is stored with them, not us? What's that? The data is stored with them and not us? We have access to it. But it's stored with them and not us?

Correct. They control it. Kind of like Sirius Radio. You pay the fee, you can run it. If not, they shut you off.

Okay. Thank you, Clarence. I appreciate that. Then I move that we purchase the stock reader sign.

We have a motion to approve the purchase of the stock reader sign. Is there a second?

Second.

Any further discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carried to approve the speed sign. Moving on to new business, the travel and reimbursement policy. Is that you, Christina?

Yep.

All righty.

This is an update that clarifies some language in there and items and adds more wording for clarification, so it's just more detailed from what we have. All department heads have reviewed the policy and agree with the changes. The main changes are adding some flexibility for use of vehicles where the staff is encouraged to use a city vehicle instead of shall use it. So they may use their personal vehicle, but if the city vehicle is available, they can only get fuel, they won't get mileage. So, but if the city vehicle is being used, then of course we would pay them mileage. This just allows more, those that feel more comfortable in their own vehicle to drive their own and then they're just getting the fuel. Meals and per diem is updated just with more details, really, and it clarifies how we handle the meal per diem and also makes it very clear on what we will not pay for certain items, like alcohol beverages and more. The per diem is the state rate, so whatever the state rate is, and they typically look at that on a yearly basis. And typically, I don't know if they update it every year, but they do at least look at it every year. And then along with that, I did find their rates they do have a leave before, leave after timeframe in there as well. And then just clarifies that we'll pay for other items like parking or tolls and registration fees. And then it clarifies the city credit cards and how they're used during business travel.

Any questions? So the meal per diem, I'm assuming it is broken down by breakfast, lunch, supper, and it is regulated by the time people leave and return, correct?

Yep, it's broken down so much for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. There's a time to leave before and leave after. And if your registration is your conference going to, if they provide the meal, you're not going to get that per diem. So if they provide lunch, you're not going to get the lunch per diem.

So it also says we're going to control the per diem through a city issued credit card. What if the employee goes over that? Do they reimburse the city?

They actually pay the credit card. So then there's no back and forth. So they just watch it.

What did you say there, Christina?

They'll pay the credit card. So anything over their per diem, they'll pay the credit card company.

Okay. Oh, it's on the city credit card, but the employee reimburses the city for that overage.

Is that what you're saying? So when we send the payment into the credit card company, the employee will pay any portion over to the credit card company. So we could have like two checks in the payment to the credit card.

Okay. So they're not paying the city, they're paying directly to the credit card company.

Okay.

Thank you.

I was told that was easier because if we aren't allowing that, there's some people don't really can't upfront that money. So we don't allow to put on the credit card and then they may not get meals. That's kind of where, what I've been told on that. So then this allows them to pay for the meals. And then if they go over, they'll have to pay for the extra, but at least they're getting covered with their meals.

Gotcha. At this point, I'll entertain a motion to approve the travel and reimbursement policy.

So move.

Is there a second? Second. Is there any further discussion? At this point, all those in favor of the travel and reimbursement policy say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion carried. Next up, first reading ordinance 964, motorized scooters. I make a motion that we approve this. Is there a second? I'll second it. Any further discussion?

I would, again, I'm hung up on this minimum. I just am. Minimum age of being able to ride on our sidewalks and streets. We have minimum ages for a good reason because kids don't have or possess adequate judgment or just reflexes to maintain or experience to maintain themselves safely. I would like to make a motion to... We have a motion on the table. Then I would... Well, do you want me to remove my motion? I would just...

Where I'm at is I want to see an ordinance of some sort because I think we need to give our SORs and our schools guidelines of what we expect in our community so that they can talk to kids when they're helping educate. I think it helps parents get on the same page with these are the expectations of our community. So that's why I feel we need an ordinance. And if we need to amend this ordinance or talk about amending the ordinance, I'm open to that discussion. So I'll remove.

It's easier if you guys would just vote. And if it fails, then you have more discussion about what the changes need to be. But it's way easier.

So currently we have a motion on the table to approve the first reading ordinance 964, motorized scooters. All those in favor of said ordinance. It did have a second. Right? Yeah.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay. All right. Roll call? I'm sorry, I was going to do a roll call.

Yes.

Approved. Aye. Is that what you voted when she said? Yeah.

Aye. No. Telson? No. Cavagelli? Yes. Jones? No. Ronsagan? Yes. Grussing?

No.

It fails.

Motion failed. At this point, would anyone like to amend or make another motion?

I would move to amend just the section 20-503. to be drivers between ages 10 to 14 years of age?

I think that's a stretch. We know where I stand on this to begin with. But we are not the experts on what a child is capable of doing safely or not safely. I see 14-year-olds being careless. I see 20-year-olds being careless, and I see some kids that are very good on bicycles, scooters, at even seven. And you could have a very tall five-year-old, and then you're going to have an officer be a judge of how old a child is. I don't think the government is not allowed to dictate what parents feel their child is capable of doing. I am understanding a little bit more where Wendy is coming from about educating, but I don't know if you guys are aware, the SROs did just do a huge session in the school on scooter safety. And is there a law right now in place that an officer can't stop and talk to a child when they witness something just because there's not an ordinance? No, they can still. That's what officers are supposed to do is educate regardless if there's an ordinance saying, hey, I just witnessed you do something silly or irresponsible. Just because there's an ordinance doesn't give them more room to educate saying, hey, you just blew through that stop sign or you were careless. But to put it on an age at 10 or whatever you're suggesting is telling parents that we don't trust parents to make decisions for their own family.

Dean, is there any kind of legal consideration for setting a minimum age on something?

There really isn't much in state law dealing with this. I mean, we have a rule that we can't have kids go to the pool and supervise other kids at a certain age for crying out loud. But we're letting them go 15 miles an hour down a sidewalk. I respectfully disagree. You were saying 14 is an appropriate age. I'm saying no. I think it should be 10 to 14 would be more appropriate for these situations. I just do. I'm familiar with 10-year-olds to 14-year-olds. I am, and their decision-making skills. I guess I've got a unique skill set in that I'd spent 25 years with them. I know I'm going to be unpopular with some parents, but I want to see kids be safe too. Thank you.

We kind of chose the 14-year-old age because that is typically when kids get an opportunity to do driver's education training and they really start learning the rules of the road. So having them on the roadway, Not every 14-year-old, obviously, is going to take Riverside right away, but a lot of them do, and so we felt more comfortable with them learning some of the rules of the road and how to navigate and them being on the roadways versus people with children who are younger than 14 and encouraging them to use the sidewalk instead.

I appreciate that fact. I do.

my personal view i just that's that's the way i think and when you mentioned an age range i i expected it to be lower like i'm like you're right we probably shouldn't have like five year olds you know that really i tend i just think you're going to have parents that are going my time's a mature 10 year old um

So I guess if we put 10-year-old on here, the community, I'm going to tell you, full-heartedly is going to come unglued. Unglued because we are dictating what families can or cannot do within their house. And some kids start babysitting at 10, okay? The responsibility of each age is not a driven number by age. And Fran, I do appreciate your... definitely your experience with kids, like hands down. I know your experience. I am also experienced in some degree too. I have five kids from 23 to seven years old and they're all very different. Yes. Does my seven-year-old ride a scooter? No, she doesn't even ride a bike, which I'm glad she doesn't watch city council because she'd probably be embarrassed I said that, but because she doesn't like to, and she's afraid to. Now my nine-year-old, and I'm her parent, so I'm allowed to say it, but I can tell you there's probably 25 other people out there that will tell you that my nine-year-old is probably one of the most responsible kids out there. And she has been for two years. She is one you will see on our block with her helmet on, following the rules of the road. And there are kids that are nine or age two that maybe aren't as responsible. But for the government, city government, to come in and dictate what kids can and cannot do, And then an officer's going to pull somebody over and say, well, how old are you? Because they might look under 10. I'm going to tell you, my 9-year-old, she looks 10 easily. But there's kids in her class that are 9 that are a lot smaller than my 7-year-old. So now we're going to make an officer judge by looking at somebody how old they are. You're opening up a can of worms. I'm just telling you.

And I would say that we're opening up a can of worms at age 14 also. I mean, there's going to be a line wherever there is. There just is.

I don't disagree with you on that either.

David Schmidt, 108 East 14th Street. For clarification, because I do not own a house here, Mr. Harris, you direct me. What's the legal age to get a driver's license in this state? Okay, so we established 14 years of age to be able to drive on a roadway. What I'm going to suggest is because you stated something quite eloquently, Ms. Hine, the fact of being able to make contact with an individual by a law enforcement officer. A law enforcement officer can do a consensual encounter any time, maybe even install some education in that. But if you're putting an ordinance out there, you have to have an ordinance that, one, makes sense, two, is actually enforceable. And you need to look at all perspectives of it. That establishes reasonable suspicion or probable cause to actually make contact with youth and take enforcement and maybe even go back and talk to the parents, informing the parents of what's going on and actually take some type of legal action whether it be a warning or otherwise. But we already know that there's a problem here in Del Rapids that Basically, it's a hard time to enforce ordinances because they won't do it, and we don't have a process to do it. It hasn't been announced. I've asked for it. With that being said, let's simplify this. Every one of us knows that state law, which is what the Sheriff's Department enforces, is there. That governs how to ride a bicycle. Tells you exactly where to place it on the roadway, the whole nine yards. If you put the enforcement on it of that, you have to follow the rules of the road, all established as you ride a bicycle as part of the ordinance, that solves your problem of what you're arguing about. As for the age of being on a sidewalk, I think when you have the ability to drive is a good cutoff of age 14. But I also agree it should be 10. And if you're worried about age, you're already questioning them about whether or not they can smoke. to prevent them to get vapes and everything else or alcohol. That's a question of age. That's training and experience of the officer no matter what, even when they're taking enforcement. The second part of it is you include it to go into the overnight periods. In the overnight periods, you're required to have a front light and you're also required to have a rear reflector. If you're putting a kid on a scooter and he's dressed all in black and he gets smoked from behind, what are you going to do? Those are the main considerations in your enforcement and your ordinance that you should be taking care of. But then you have a problem with the bikes in the south. You have bikes out there now that are e-bikes that are motorized. Some of them even come equipped with VIN numbers that can go up to 39 miles an hour, and they're classified as an e-bike. which in some states, they're actually classified as a motorcycle. There's other states where you're required to have a driver's license to be on them. So those are all considerations that I brought up in the first time. But to solve this part of the ordinance for the scooters and the other part, make a reference, change the ordinance so that it reads, following the same state mandates as bicycles, referencing a statute. That way, if it's a violation of a bike ordinance, which they all have to be accustomed to anyway, it's the same violation on scooters. Just use common sense. Thank you.

Thank you, Dave. It sounds like we have a lot of work to do on our ordinance.

Brian, I just want to clarify. So Section 503 currently says drivers under 14 years of age, but you wanted to say drivers 10 to 14 years of age. So then we're not regulating or the ordinance doesn't have anything on nine and under?

Right now, I would expect them to be, I guess, students to be on the property. I'm just saying there's a gap there.

I do see a lot of families out walking and their kid will ride a bike and or a scooter.

I see that, too.

And just to clarify, this would not affect my daughter if you changed it to 10, because she does turn 10 this winter and scooter season's almost over.

So, Fran, when you said on the property, on like the homeowner's property?

Yeah, or I would be okay with saying under direct supervision of parents. I mean, that's... And again, it's going to be tough to enforce. It just will. But I do think that there's going to have to be. It just, having a six-year-old possibly piling down a sidewalk at 15 miles an hour and that being okay with any sidewalk in town, It irks me.

But that's where I come back with. I agree with Amanda. That's a parent. Did the parent, I mean, they bought the motorized scooter. They're allowing their child on that scooter. I'm just trying to make it so we're all regulated on where people are driving, you know. And giving our SROs and our deputies, if they see repeated, flagrant, dangerous violations, that gives them the opportunity then to go knock on a parent's door and say, you know, I've had a conversation with your child the last few days or weeks, and I'm not getting anywhere. Can we work, you know, like, let's try to... Get this changed.

Another conversation, and just, again, you guys know where I stand, but side conversation I had with a member of the community and with the golf carts, I know it's similar. A thought, I don't know how well it would be received either, is that we do like a permit type thing for scooters, okay? Not saying we have to bring back Safety Town, which I would love to see come back some way in some shape or form, but if then the parent and the child would come down get their permit, minimal charge, right? Like affordable. And they're also agreeing to the rules of the road, not being like, but it's also like an education. Like here's a pamphlet. This is what is expected if you're going to be on the scooter. That's also holding the parents somewhat accountable, not saying anything, I don't know where that stands with, like, legal, right? Because I know with golf carts, I think I don't have a golf cart, but you also agree to abide by the rules and things like that. But then the parents would be saying, okay, now you have this little permit which has a number identifying the scooter. Then the officer can be like, okay, we have a repeat offender. It's the scooter number. I don't know. Something... To bring everybody together. I don't know what that would look like. I just know it's something similar for golf carts, but I don't have a golf cart, so I don't know. Well, and golf carts is a separate... No, I know, but I'm just saying...

It's separate, and it's a separate thing that we're going to address. But we did, in the previous bicycle ordinance, there was wording in there that talked about having your bike registered, and we pulled that out of there because... It just became kind of unreasonable. Like, people were not registering their bikes anyway.

We have a change of bike ordinance. We started looking at it, and it's a complete mess that needs to be redone. And so we're like, we just decided to focus on this and just write this ordinance, and we know we have to go back and clean up the bike ordinance.

And I'm sure with scooters, not everybody would register their scooter either.

I'm just going to be a hard no on adding more layers of coming down and registering and giving up. I'm just a hard no on that. And I'm going to defer to parents for a minimum age. I'm not going to be the one who sits up here and says, if I go walk in with my five-year-old, they can't ride a scooter next to me. Yeah. That's this parameter.

If this is referred back, it's actually Class 3, which is basically the motorized fast ones. And I haven't found the definitions because I just started looking. The last time I looked, I didn't see anything on other bikes. But under Chapter 32 of the state law, basically, it has operation on a sidewalk or crosswalk, rights of the duty of a cyclist, and duty to stop or duty to yield. So in your incorporation, just look at it. That's why I'm saying look at the bike ordinance. And you hit it right on the head, Wendy. It all goes the same. If your bike ordinance is messed up, include it and define all the vehicles that are included for the kids at that age. So like I said, 14 is a good age, included for everybody underneath it. And I understand your concern about walking, but that's the same as a bicycle. All the laws of the bicycle still apply, whether they're two or whether they're 56, like myself.

Thank you, Dave. At this point, is there a motion to be made?

Hearing none. Seeing none. Wait, I'm going to make a motion. You are. Because I feel we need to get something on the books, Dave. And we know our bikes is a mess. And we should not just hold up the safety of this community because our bike ordinance is a mess. We can always go back and add to it or change it. But we need to. I mean, it is September.

I understand that, but I'd rather have an ordinance passed once that took care of the problems. Take the extra time and do the bicycle. It's already September. That means bicycle goes for another month and you got all winter to fix it for spring and get the education there during the school year. The other aspect of it is, and I'm gonna use our conversation last time. The ordinances in the city have been overlooked for so long, it's ridiculous. And part of it is in the aspect that It was said, and it's been said more than once to me, and not just by you, so I'm not calling you out and I apologize, but it's been said more than once to me because we do not want to pay a city attorney to do their job. Some of this job does not have to be fully done by the city attorney. It can be done by you guys. The second part of it, it can be done by city staff. Or you can have your policy and committee on that. But you can't have public input to a policy and procedure committee that basically hides with no agenda given to the public to put public insight into it. The other aspect I'll throw to it right now, you're discussing something that was decided in committee. If you look at the rules that I presented to the mayor earlier, all committees shall report in writing. So that means public records and meeting laws apply because it's listed in an ordinance. I'm being honest with you guys. I've been labeled as harassment, but I look at the statutes and I see how messed up they are. I see how they're not being followed. And it's played off like nobody cares. And I'm not saying that you don't because you're attempting to do something right. But look at it from the broad perception and put it all together. And you're doing a good job on it on this one.

Thank you, Dave. Thank you. I do believe that the committee did come out with this ordinance. Am I right, committee? Yeah.

This is the work of the Policies and Procedures Committee.

Correct. But there's no public notice. Nothing's been submitted to you guys in writing as required by your committee.

It wasn't the last meeting. Moving on.

Fran, I just want to make sure you didn't make an official motion, right? You just kind of, or did you, to amend?

I believe I did.

Okay. So Fran made a motion.

I believe I did change or make a motion to amend and include drivers from ages 10 through 14 in section 20-503.

All right.

We have a motion on the table.

They never got a second.

Because I think it went into discussion. I have to ask for a second. I think we just need to ask. I still have to ask for the second. So I'm repeating the motion as stated to include the ages of 10 through 14. Is there a second? Hearing none, motion fails. Moving on. Ordinance 965, first reading weed control.

Christina, you got that? Any information on that? This is a cleanup ordinance. So as we're going through some things on weed control, we found ordinance 748 was approved back in August of 2011, was not in the ordinance form, so it wasn't updated in the code book. So what you have in front of you is exactly what was approved in August of 2011, but it's in ordinance form. So then we can publish the correct ordinance and update the code book when it's effective.

I'll make a motion for approval.

High in second. Any further discussion on the weed control ordinance 965? Hearing none, seeing none, all those in favor of ordinance 965, first reading weed control, say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carried. Moving on, finance officer's report.

Christina. August financials are complete. They are actually on the new, brand new website that went live today, this morning. Matt will give you an update on that website. They are under finance reports. under departments, finance, and budget reports. So you'll be able to see the revenue and expenditures there now. I'll just kind of do an update on my finance update, saying that they're there every month that they're available. And then the sales tax analysis is up on the website as well. Pool of financial information is really just there for kind of your information. It's as of September 10th of this year, so there will be some expenditures through the rest of the year that it can update once the year is finalized. I know Clarence is doing some work down there, winterizing and all that stuff. This is just for information. Concessions will be revamped next year, and Matt will oversee that more to help with the revenue side of that and the expenditure side. So overall, revenue was up from last year. Memberships and lessons were up this year as well.

All right, thank you. Were you doing the administrative report as well? Yes. Okay, we'll move on to that then.

Employee evaluations update. Just three employees had evaluations this month. So Matt Larson's Anna Review and his new wage, and then Utility Building Supervisor Brittany Nelson's new wage, and Assistant Finance Officer Tammy Chandler's new wage. They are in coordinates with the employee pay plan. No actions required on that. Changing table update, we did order those.

They are in, did you get them in today? Pardon me, tomorrow.

So they have been ordered. We actually did receive them. And then Clarence said he'll get those in tomorrow into the pavilion. So and then we'll kind of just reevaluate next year and see if we need them anywhere else. All right, thank you for that.

At this point, other reports, Matt?

Yeah, as mentioned, the new website went live this morning at about 10 o'clock. So far, everything seems to be working mostly correctly with that. There are a couple of hiccups here and there that I got to clean out from a past website. But I encourage you guys to take a look at it, offer some feedback. If there's anything in there that you might see that's missing or slight changes, like all the pictures are all editable, we can change all of those, update all of those. I do have access to the old site for another month, so we'll just continue to make sure that we pull everything off of there that is needed. and we save it. But the big thing here, it's a lot cleaner, I think, easier to navigate, a lot less pages that all say the same thing. We've got fewer now.

I have a question. It looks nice, the little bit I've played around tonight. I had a member of the community reach out to me about how long we keep the video archives of our meetings. And I reached out to Steve, and I think he said state law was 90 days, but we have like three years on our website. Are you pulling over all three years?

How long are we? That actually comes from our video software, our agenda software from Granite Desk. So that's all. It's a link, basically, on our website. So it goes into that. Okay.

Because that person was a little nervous we were going to lose a bunch of information there.

No, that was just an embedded page that pulls from the different systems. So we just embedded that on it.

Okay. And does, so now my question is more about, I guess, Granicus. Is there a limit to how long we can keep that information there or, because this person was wondering if we do like any sort of hard backup on our own.

So there's no limitation that I'm aware of Granicus. I started using Granicus when I worked here, so I'm not super familiar with it, but I haven't seen any limitations on it. As far as backup, I download, I have been, I don't know what previous staff has done, but I download the packets and save the minutes after every meeting.

Granicus is a local server. It is constrained by its local drives. It is under the backup schedule that Margo does of servers, which is retained to a local backup clients. And I'm assuming I haven't seen what their cloud retention is, but there's also cloud retention.

Okay. Thank you. This person was just concerned if we were really going to move to like a 90-day, like that's not a lot of information to be kept. But that was according to Steve.

90 days is only on videos. Okay. So we have to keep minutes forever.

Right. But I mean the video piece. We have those going back still multiple years. Right now, currently, yeah. Back there to 2022.

I mean, theoretically, I mean, data hoarding is a real thing. I mean, there's going to be... Generally, the system will be set up to purge once you get close to a percentage.

But there's a big difference between 90 days and...

through you know like what i mean like 90 days is nothing in today's world so i'm i'm glad we're beyond the 90 days that's where i'm at with storage so thank you matt is there any way to get the um as i was clicking through the riverside is maintaining its own outside website to get that integrated into the so we're one del one city of del rapids so people aren't navigating out and then have to go back in and

I don't know if there is or not. That was well before I started. I don't know who hosts that or where that is at the moment. I'll have to talk with Brittany on that.

Okay.

Because I've done websites where it takes the user out and then back in. It'd be nice if it's all, especially if I haven't looked at the Riverside, if they're doing any financials to keep it all within the city's firewalls and everything as well. Just an idea for you.

I'm assuming we're going to bring more of our previous year's budgets into the new website. I guess when I was looking under budgets and reports, I found the 26th, which was on ClearGov.

And then I didn't see any other year's budgets. Yep, if you do the drop down below. So there's these drop downs and there's ordinances. There's 13. So that, so I, I am going to clean that up. That was what, that was what was.

Do this. Yeah. I'll bring it up. There we go.

So I am gonna add some more and clean it up, but that was always what was put on there by previous staff was just the ordinance. And then I added the 2026 detailed budget. And then since the 27 is approved now, I'll add the 27 detailed budget. So I'll add some more information each year, but what is currently the 2025 and older was what was on there before.

Yeah, I know. I saw the ordinance. I just wanted to know if the entire budget could be made available for a few years.

Yep, I will add it. I just haven't gone in there and cleaned a lot of that up yet. I do want to get the current one on there, and then I'll get the 27s on there.

And no other previous years? You're just going to leave it as that? Just the coordinates?

I can go back. I'll probably go back to 25, maybe 24. I don't know if I'll go back much further than that. But I'm, yeah, working on cleaning up some of that stuff because some of this is not in PDF format, too. So those are things we need to work on at the back end.

Okay. Thank you. Yep.

Any other questions for Matt? Do you have anything else for us, Matt? All right. Well, thank you. The website looks good. Anyone else? All right. Mayor's report, we really don't have anything other than there will be a chili cook-off scheduled on the downtown trick-or-treat. If anyone's interested in throwing your hat in the ring to win the second annual chili cook-off title of winners for Del Rapids, it will be held at the museum during the downtown trick-or-treat. At that point, I've got nothing, and I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Is there a second?