Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Budget work session. Follow up on discussion items.

Okay. I'm going to run off a two computer screen today so I can hopefully navigate this a little bit better. I did have two things on your desk this morning or this evening and I'll walk through those. The first item looks like what you see on the screen and this is the budget changes as of September 14th. In order to see kind of where we stood after the discussions at the last budget work session, this is how I'm tracking the changes to each of the funds and where we currently stand. So in the burgundy here, you can see that we added 2.17 percent growth in property taxes, which added 152 in revenue. I did add revenue out of the dedicated reserves for future capital projects towards HVAC improvements at the Corn Palace, as well as the elevator. And then we took out the future capital project reserves that were being used for the splash pad. Moving down to the expenses in the general fund, we added the freight elevator improvement project, city hall flooring, including the repair and repaint of the walls in city hall at 10,000. We reduced contingency to be back at the 2026 level. We added $3,000 of funding to the police budget for the project lifesaver. Decrease, yeah, that's really crazy. oh okay decreased the Decreased the transfer out of general fund revenue that was going to go towards the splash pad. Increased the transfer to the park department for Cadwell fence. The reason why it's only $175,000 is, well, I'll show you that when we get to the park fund. Increased the transfer to the parks for the Drakefield fence. Then we decreased the transfer to parks to offset the splash pad being removed. and then increase the transfer to the Corn Palace. Again, that's coming out of the Future Capital Project Fund reserves for the HVAC. So you can see here the difference is the budget as it stands right now, your general fund will be short $55,205. When we left the meeting the last time, I said we were short $105,000. And the reason why there's a $50,000 difference is over here on the right. If you look here, there was in the budget request for the Cadwell fence, Park Department had showed $50,000 in revenue coming from outside contributions towards that project. So I added that revenue back in. Again, remove the splash part contributions, added the revenue from the general fund for Cadwell Fence, for Drake Fence, added the revenue back in for the Cadwell from outside source, and removed the donation for the splash pad. As far as expenses in the park fund, we took out the splash pad at a million dollars. We added the Cadwell fence and added the Drake fence. So you can see we balanced when we look at those changes in the revenue and the expense budgets in the park fund. Okay, moving to the left, the tan color is the Corn Palace fund changes. So here, increase the transfer into the Corn Palace to fund the maintenance items, the HVAC maintenance. That is coming from general fund reserves for future capital projects. increased the transfer in from entertainment tax reserves to fund the bleachers, added additional revenue from entertainment tax for the bleachers, and then just additional revenue from the current general or entertainment tax revenue towards HVAC. And then on the expenses, and I'll go into the Corn Palace in more detail next. I'll just kind of do the overview right now. We added in the bleacher replacements and the HVAC improvements. The reason why this fund is showing negative in this fund is the proposal I'm going to go through today shows we know that the project will not be all completed in 2027. So the way it's proposed is we're using some of the revenue from 2027 the balance $340,000 would come out of the entertainment tax revenue in 2028. And the last one here is in the gold box. Entertainment tax reserves, we had $600,000 sitting in entertainment tax reserves for future capital facilities at the Corn Palace. We are already using $375,000 towards the replacement of the floor and the subfloor at the Corn Palace. This would be adding, utilizing the remainder of that balance towards the bleachers. So we took out the splash pad. I did keep in $150,000 for the design of the splash pad and the entertainment tax fund. We have transferring out to the Corn Palace towards the bleachers and towards the bleachers. The $100,000 is coming out of current revenue. $225,000 would come out of reserves and then towards the HVAC. So that is a balance here now of zero. While we're talking about Corn Palace, this budget and until we received changes from council, council had asked that we come up or that come back with an option for funding these Corn Palace improvements. So everything that you have as of right now on your desk shows that this is how they would be funded. So we'll start with this first line, which is the HVAC. The budget is roughly $3.4 million. To fund those improvements, we'd be taking $3 million out of the general fund, future capital project fund, reserve, We'd be using $96,000 of the 2027 entertainment tax revenue. And then the remaining balance would be $340,000 that would come out of 2028 entertainment tax revenue. That really would be the final payments and the last part of the project in 2028 to give us a total funding of $3.4 million. For the gym floor, the budget request was $375,000. We are using those dedicated reserves in the entertainment tax fund that were dedicated for future capital facilities at the Corn Palace. Bleachers was $325,000. We're proposing $100,000 out of 2027 entertainment tax revenue and the balance coming out of those entertainment tax reserves for future Corn Palace facilities. And you will see with those two projects, that will fully deplete those funds that were set aside in the entertainment tax fund. Then the last project would be the freight elevator. And if the council moves forward with that, it would also come out of general fund future capital projects reserves. That's kind of a tongue twister there. Right now we have... almost $4.6 million in the general fund future capital projects. This shows that we'd be using about 3.5 out of that account towards these projects. You would still have a balance in that fund of over a million dollars. I was also asked about bonding versus paying cash for that project. Unfortunately, the person, the financial advisor that we usually use for municipal bonds is out of the office. I actually don't have a meeting with them until tomorrow. But I just took what I could find for our bond rating for... excuse me, municipal bond rates online. And right now, this would be for the most recent rate increase. So this is likely went up, was 3.68% over 10 years. So that would be $400,000 a year in debt service over 10 years with $700,000 of interest paid. At this point or at this time, the reason why I'm showing those funded out of those reserved or current cash is because they are maintenance items and typically we've reserved bonding for doing new projects. And then the, excuse me, as you're going through, I did print out an updated council review list. And just so you can kind of understand the color coding on here, anything that was discussed at the meeting now has a blue line or is shaded in blue so that you know that we discussed it. If, let me make this smaller. If the city council decided to put something back in the budget, that would be noted. So the first line would be item number nine. That's the bleacher replacements that we've been talking about. We added $325,000 under the council changes yellow highlight. That has an entertainment tax budget impact of 100,000 and then 225 out of reserves. And there you can see for the HVAC improvements at the Corn Palace, 96,000 coming out of current revenue and the balance coming out of reserves. Next one was replacing the freight elevator. Again, that's coming out of reserves. So that didn't affect the budget impact. Then we added in the flooring and the windows. I did make a note on the discussions that we had on the bathroom remodel as well as the window and door replacement of public safety. As I said in the last work session, the reason why we left those things off is we do know that they are going to have sufficient unspent, make sure I'm saying the right year, 2026 health insurance funds that will be unspent that they could ask to supplement into 2027. There was a little bit of discussion on the First Avenue and Sixth Avenue projects. The shop expansion, just keeping in mind that the total cost of that project is $600,000, but we have that split between the general fund, sanitation fund, and water fund. Again, we didn't do currently the improvements that we saw on the tour for the traffic building on line 80 are not included just because all that really was doing was moving it from the existing facility to the new facility. It's not really adding to our operations where the street shop expansion allowed us to have mechanics working on more vehicles at a time than they currently do. Council did ask about the tennis courts. You guys discussed this a little bit. We did have a meeting in May. And at the time, what the city staff that were there, the pledge that we received from the school was $75,000 a year over three years. And then they had the grant that was talked about at the last meeting as well. We've talked about the splash park. Again, I did keep in $150,000 towards the design of the splash park. We added in the Drake field fence, Cadwell outfield fence. I did send out the notification to all of the subsidies, letting them know what the current proposed budget level is for each of the subsidies. And then I did specifically ask MADC if they would present or discuss their subsidy as requested by council. Everybody else was told they're not being asked to present, but if there's questions, they may be asked to answer questions. Okay. Some follow-up on additional items. I do want to point out that based on the council's last discussion or at the last meeting, the resolution for the sales tax, excuse me, property tax levy for 2027 includes growth. So if you are not wanting to take growth, we would want to amend that resolution to not include growth. I did want to point out, Kevin, is this right, the maximum of that grant is $280,000 or was it $240,000?

I can't remember.

I think it's $250,000. $250,000. That's what I was thinking too. So the maximum that Tennis can get for the grant is $250,000 regardless of the number of courts. There was some discussion on adding a full-time lake Mitchell maintenance person I did just want to report back to the council that in 2012 the city did add a full-time lake position That position is dedicated at the lake Tuesday through Saturday I asked Kevin or the park and rec department the percentage of time spent he said typically it's about 80 percent of the time depending on what's you know what the workload or what's going on but they also help with snow removal and other items in addition the city did add another full-time park specialist in 2025 when we eliminated the park's administrative assistant I did do a cost breakout of that for you. It's right under $80,000. I think it was $77,000 that that cost increase would be to add another full-time person. One thing that Kevin and I talked about is they... Kevin Nelson, excuse me. They do have a lot of volunteers that are currently working around the lake. It sounds like that volunteer work is going to be continuing. One thing that we've noticed is there's times when they have done tree thinning or cutting branches down and they have piles of trees waiting to be picked up and it doesn't, we're not always able to get there right when they need it or right in a timely manner. It might make sense that you look at adding some budget just for the hauling of those materials as they're cut down versus I don't know how much more work, your full-time person will be committing to that. We've added, like I said, we've already added one full-time person at the lake. They added another full-time park specialist in 25. So just something to keep in mind. It might be helpful while you still have active volunteers instead of budgeting for a staff person because then we still don't have the truck and the ability to haul that material away to maybe add some funds for trucking that offsite when needed. We had a request, Tim, and I don't know if you need follow-up on this or not, but you said you would like to see a dedicated workout facility in Station 1. Really, Station 2 is planned very similar to the way Station 1 is, and it sounds like that's pretty typical. You should also know, and this wasn't really discussed at the last meeting, firefighters, since they work 24-7 shifts, that's why they're working out on shift. We allow them to do that. It's not necessarily the same for PD. So just keep that in mind as well. Okay. I think that that's all of the review and follow-up items that you asked me to bring in. Are there questions or additional discussion that I can answer questions or additional direction from council before next week?

Quick question. I'm the late guy. I've talked to people, and they say they don't see anybody out there. Is there a guy that's actually, because nobody ever sees him out there.

We have a position that is dedicated Tuesday through Saturday from 7 to 3, Kevin?

7 to 3.30 or 7.30 till 4. Campground can be a lot of their focus during the summer months.

Can't be too busy out there. There's not many people at the campground.

Looking back at the history, though, that was added for the lake, not just the campground.

Does there happen to be a job description or job duties for that individual?

Yeah, a park specialist. So because the city uses wage... broad banding. They're all, all of us park specialist positions are the same. This also might be a forester, which is in the same grade as a park specialist. I can send that out, but they're pretty generic, general.

Yeah. So this particular position at the lake, we would, it would not list specifics.

No, because it's the same type of duties that are happening with similar situated positions. And so we don't do specific job descriptions for similar duties. And they're all grouped with similar knowledge, skill, and ability. I mean, you could say, I think council could direct that you want one of those. Yeah, I'm not really sure how you would do it differently. especially with union requirements and out of class. And I think we try to keep those as broad as possible. Did anyone see anything I missed? Because I feel like I was struggling to keep up last week.

No, you did a very good job. Since we're on the lake, I'm going to have you go to... I don't know if anybody brought their... It's on page 14 on the big line item 804. So given the fact that we're a little bit behind on the lake project itself, on line number 804 is the payment for the SRF loan for 27. Can you maybe step us through that and tell us what the likelihood of that would be with the $1.2 million?

Okay. Just like last year, I went ahead and plugged in the full payment, the first full year payment for debt service for the SRF project. We talked about it. We're not bidding the project yet. It's highly unlikely that... Well, I know we're not going to have a payment due in the spring. I mean, I think the earliest... you could probably think is maybe you would have one in the fall, but more than likely it's going to be 2029 before you have a payment due. We pay those twice a year. Oh, sorry, 2028. I'm working in two years again. Sorry, three years, four years, yes. So more than likely our first payment will be in spring of 2028. Sorry, thank you. Or fall of 2018. I think it would be highly unlikely that we're going to have a debt service payment due next year in 27. Does that help? It does. Okay. But I still think it's important, at least from my perspective, that that is shown in there because it's an obligation that we're paying for out of sales tax and I don't want it to get absorbed into operations.

So I guess the question is if we decide to utilize that money with other projects, That that's a possibility we can look at instead of having the general fund supply 1.2M into the lake fund. Knowing that almost certainly that the payment's not going to start till 28. This is a 27 budget. So, could we look possibly at other projects for the 1.2.

I think that's council's prerogative. I do think it's unlikely we're going to have a debt service payment. The other thought process you could look at is the money would be sitting there for when you do have your first year's payment to make. So I don't think we'll have a debt service payment due in 27.

We could also borrow less money too, right?

Yeah, or put it towards the debt, whatever you want to do. Of course, me saying you have your money sitting there for the first payment because I like to be a year ahead if we can.

Joe, you ready for one?

Sure.

I was going to go on page eight. Yeah, I'm sorry. No, you're good.

That's the big one that you... Do you have a line number?

Yeah, 456. Okay, so this is one of the large projects, Jill. And the comment on the note, it states SRF loan dash requires sewer rate increase. So I guess my initial question is, when we first got into these projects, we had to raise our rates because we were too low and we weren't eligible for the loan, the SRF loan. And obviously we increased our rates. Is that the case in this situation, or is it given the fact we have another project, we would have to raise rates in order to help pay for that project? Which situation would that be?

With how we're set up right now, we would need the rate increase for the project.

For the project.

Correct.

So as far as being eligible for SRF, we're there because we raised our rates.

Correct. Yeah, yeah.

And that's something that's very important is the fact that, yeah, nobody likes the increased rates, and I don't like it. I don't like paying. But in all reality, we weren't even at a level that the state would even fund the projects because we were too low. which isn't a bad thing, but in all reality is we weren't eligible for the loans because we had to increase our rates in order to get around the 50%.

And to be clear, I don't know if the SRF necessarily won't give you a loan if you don't have high enough rates, but we had to increase our rates to dedicate that new revenue to the debt service repayment. So we couldn't get a loan on the project if we didn't increase the rates to do so.

The reason I wanted that definition, I think at some point in time we need to determine if we want to pause for a year on large projects, and we talked about that at the last meeting, and just let things stay the way they are, and then pick the infrastructure back up with the new council next year. and to be quite honest with you, if it isn't in dire straits, that would be my preference, but I would be interested in anybody else's comments.

I would agree that I think if we can hold off and not raise rates as much as possible, that would be, I think, good for at least a year to think about doing that. That was one of the major things that I heard when going door-to-door and campaigning was that people are feeling the squeeze from the rates, and so if we could take a year off, I think that would be good.

I would agree with that as well. I think taking a year off of the rates would help families out in town, and I think people would really, really, really like that.

I think the discussion last meeting was, and I guess I'm asking Joe again, you said there was a preference if one or the other was done, you had a preference, correct? And then two, nobody was currently suffering like quality of life due to the projects not being completed. Do you remember which one was maybe preferential in completing if we were to do only one?

I do feel that the Sixth Avenue project, in my opinion, would take preference. We do plan to replace a block of sewer potentially at this fall on that project because it is, we think it's bad enough that we need to do it now versus later with some of our leftover funds from our other Sixth Avenue project that we just completed. That'll come back to council for council approval when we get that quote together from the contractor.

And I think when you're talking about like that quality of life, that block that Joe was talking about is essential to do right away.

Joe, touching base on that First Avenue, obviously from, what is it, Byrd of Foster, I believe it said. And obviously with what we have going down there with the, with obviously our new homes that are going in off First Street, would that maybe be beneficial to hold off of that also? Because of all, I mean, I'm just thinking all the trucks that are going to be coming in the, destruction that probably is going to continue to happen to the roads while that development is taking place maybe us waiting for that to get done and then come in and put in a new road and all that kind of stuff might be an ideal situation also instead of having two things go go out at the same time and then also we got a lot of roads getting bashed up by trucks yeah i do think there is some life left on uh first avenue if we did wait like the road itself isn't in dire need to be replaced um so i would from the point of view of the road itself it would be fine to wait you know i was i mean obviously when you're doing the development there it's sometimes nice to snap off both birds to one stone you know kind of thing it's let's get the road done let's get the development done which is all going in but i don't know if that's going to be good in the long run compared to how they tie it in and i just don't want to do a new road and also get more devastation to it from what we're doing at that development but

I'd also be 100% behind not raising the rates this year because that's definitely one of the biggest complaints I hear everywhere I go is the water rates are killing people.

That's four people. If there's a fifth, that will help us in making changes to the budget. I heard Jeff, Tim, Sean, and Kevin.

I'm agreeing with them on that. I just wanted to make sure the discussions around the increased water rates were due to the projects not being completed for an extended period of time or any major projects being completed. I just wanted to kind of get some input from Joe and maybe anybody else who's been here longer than I have about whether putting one or both of these on the back burner until next year could put us in the same situation where we're doing too many projects at once and seeing a larger jump.

I think the city should feel good about the rate and the number of projects that we have accomplished in the past five years compared to really virtually no work happening for a significant period of time prior to that, other than work that we were completing. I think, Joe, we were talking, we used to bid, what, once every three years for a project? And we've been bidding two a year. I mean, that's pretty aggressive compared to where we were in the past. So we've made huge strides and improvements, and we're still going to continue to do replacement work that we have budgeted as part of our annual maintenance. It's just not that big project if you hold off.

So are you discussing about moving both projects off, the first half and then the sixth, is what you're thinking, Jeff, and not moving forward with at least one of them?

Yes, because we would have to increase rates with either one of them.

Okay, I believe you'd increase rates for each of them. Correct? Independently. All right 6 o'clock anything else before we move on.

I support that as well. Like, I would like to at some future meeting kind of get a. Maybe you can inform me personally too, but what the, what the plan looks like for street replacements going forward and at what rate you feel we should be at. I'm in support of delaying the projects for next year, but I know you can't kick the can down the road forever, so we have to be cognizant of that.

And I think our discussions have revolved around backing down to one major project a year instead of trying to tackle two.

If we do that... Do we still have to raise to do more projects down the road? Yes. Or there's not enough profit to absorb anymore?

No. We will have to raise rates to do a future major project.

And refresh my memory, we still got some, one in our ward, some major drainage problems. Correct. Is that the same funding?

Those are funded out of the sewer fund unless you did something different. Correct.

Okay. Okay. Call the regular meeting in order. Start with the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Remain standing. We will do the invocation by Northridge Baptist Church.

just want to express my gratitude for the work you guys are all doing and i mean everyone's doing here so city staff as well appreciate that and so with that in mind let's just bow together in prayer uh heavenly father we thank you for uh being a part of what you're doing here in mitchell thankful for the council for the city staff for the residents the citizens of of our city and Lord. And we just want to be people that are following you and knowing that you are the one who's leading us. You are the one who's empowering us. And I pray for hearts for each individual person to just have a desire for their motive to bring you glory and to do what's best according to how you're leading, Lord. So guide them throughout, guide each one here throughout this evening and may you be glorified. We pray this all in Jesus' name. Amen.

Sabres. Here. Goldhammer.

Here.

Davis.

Here.

McArdle.

Here.

Barrington.

Here.

Schlemgen.

Here.

Greenway.

Here.

Smith.

Here. Okay, we have a quorum. Approval of the consent agenda items. Items appearing on the consent agenda may be removed by a city council member for discussion at the beginning of formal agenda items. Would anyone like to remove anything?

Move to approve.

Motion by Mr. Goldhammer. I'll second. Second by Mr. Davis. Further discussion? Anyone in the audience like to discuss this? Okay, roll call.

Davis?

Aye.

McArdle?

Aye.

Barrington?

Aye.

Schlimken?

Aye.

Greenway? Aye. Smith?

Aye.

Sabres?

Aye.

Goldhammer? Aye.

Motion carries. Next, let the comment. If you need to address the mayor and members of city council on an item that was not on the agenda, excluding personnel items, please come forward to the podium and state your name and your concern. Presentations are limited to three minutes. Items will be considered and no action will be taken at this time. Anybody like to address the council?

I'm Terry Jacklin, and I'm with the Area Community Theater. And I just want to touch on a few points of things that are coming up. We really appreciate the overwhelming attendance to the Elvis Tribute on Saturday. I know there were a lot of activities going on in town Saturday, but we had over 365 people attend, which is basically a 93% capacity. And We try to keep our ticket prices as low as possible to provide these shows for as little as $20 per show for our act members. And our flex membership ticket memberships are selling extremely well. And we have a lot of exciting things coming up. This Thursday is our Thursday Night Live. It's free to the public. We are going to be hosting Holly Vandenberg from Sioux Falls. She's a blind pianist. And doors will be opening at 6, and the show is free, and it's at 7 o'clock. Our next thing would be The Bad Seed, which is our ACT fall production, and it's the weekends of October 2nd and October 9th. It's based on a play from the 1950s about an angelic little girl who is suspected by her mother of being a cold-blooded killer. So it's a mystery thriller, something we haven't done in a while. Not really a comedy, but it's kind of heavy, but I think it's going to be an interesting twist for everybody. And in 1956, it was made into a classic movie, and there may be people here who have seen it. We will also be having several new people on the stage for this show as well as veterans. So we've gotten a very, very exciting amount of people auditioning for our shows lately. On the 2nd of November is Ozark Jubilee Branson Christmas. It's a rental and they've priced their tickets at $40. This group has been here several times starting at the State Theater all the way up to the current Pepsi-Cola Theater, and they're very well received. They bring buses of people in, and it's pretty enjoyable. On the 11th of November, we will be having Mitchell Hall's tribute to Johnny Cash, somewhat like the Elvis, and that one's been pretty popular as well. And just wanting to mention that with the cost of maintenance, climbing, maintaining an aging building, including roof, A.C., and working to make more efforts to further the ADA compliance, memberships and attending our shows would help with these efforts and would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else like to address the council?

Hi, City Council Mayor Hanson. I'm Elizabeth with Mitchell Main Street and Beyond, and I just wanted to say thank you for your continued support. We had Oktoberfest and the 301 rods on Main Street this past Saturday with a lot of other great opportunities and events in our community like the 665 coming back and the volleyball tournament. It was a great weekend in Mitchell. Oktoberfest, it was really fun. If you got a chance, we actually had about 11 wiener dogs this year, so it was an exciting time. We had three families from Nebraska step up and say that they made this their destination because of that event, and an older couple from Wisconsin. So we are starting to see out-of-state travel for these events, which is exciting because they're coming to see what we have in Mitchell, which to me is fun. I came from a smaller town. I love this community. Coming up here, we have Ladies Day Out on October 3rd. That is our huge retail event in the fall, followed by the Beverage Bash kickoff. We are inviting restaurants and coffee shops to have a fall beverage contest. And then it's up to their creative mixologists to make whatever they want within those categories. guidelines, followed by the downtown trick or treat. Thank you for proving that in the special events permit. We plan to close the road for trunk or treaters to have the option to come down. We've already had people sign up. So if you are interested in being a trunk for downtown trick or treat, we're going to park them down the middle. And then we are working with a guild called to do a zombie crawl, I believe is what's going to be called. And we're working on those details. So you're watching our social. Thank you all.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the council?

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council. My name is Stuart Hanson. I'll just start out by saying that I read the letter to the editor by Terry Sabers. In it, he said that since the mayor's outspoken father chimed in about the 50% rule, he would break his silence about it. What Mr. Sabres calls being outspoken, I call being passionate. Here's an example. 27 years ago when our daughter was a senior in high school, a student brought a gun to school and was pointing it at her and others. She reported it to a person in charge. The rule at that time was anyone caught with any weapon on school property, it was an automatic one-year suspension. I called the police department to get a police report and was told I couldn't get it, but the policeman that went to the school told me not to worry about it because it was an automatic one-year suspension. As it turned out, it was a pellet gun, but he said that wouldn't make a difference. Consider my surprise when we found out the student wasn't going to be suspended for a year. Was it because his dad was a doctor? Was it because the Hanson name didn't mean anything in Mitchell? Who knows? So I went to a school board meeting and asked why the student wasn't being suspended for a year. When I got nowhere with the school board, I talked to the school superintendent at the time and got nowhere with him. I wasn't satisfied with that. So I went in a different direction and called the state's attorney at his home. I found out from him that the student was sent to Michigan to live with his father, and there was a plea bargain on the table where he wasn't even had to come back for court. That infuriated me. What else could I do? The only thing I could think of was to call the judge in charge of the case at his home at 9 p.m. I explained everything to him and let him know my feelings about it. What happened? Common sense finally prevailed and the student had to come back to Mitchell and face the consequences in court. But why didn't the school board or superintendent follow the rules? We received some support from the community, but very little. Again, probably because the Hanson name didn't really mean anything in Mitchell. Now for the ending. Here's a snippet of a letter to the editor I wrote six months later, August 14th, 1999. I'm leaving out the name of the superintendent. It was titled, A Blessing in Disguise. A good thing happened to Mitchell recently. Our school superintendent resigned his post to the Mitchell School District. I would like to thank Jim Montgomery, the president of the Mitchell Education Association for his comments in the Tuesday, August 10th paper about the superintendent's resignation. Mr. Montgomery stated maybe it's in the best interest of the district that he is leaving. I don't know if he's at fault or the board is at fault or both, but whatever it is happening in the sessions, we've been having problems with policy not being followed. Finally, someone listened. What would have happened if I hadn't been so outspoken? My wife and I didn't go through all of this for our daughter's sake. She'd been bullied and harassed to the point where she quit high school. We did it so other families didn't have to go through the same crap we did. So when some people call me outspoken, I say I'm very passionate about the things I talk about, plain and simple. And that's why I am like I am. Thank you.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the council? Anyone on the council? Okay, moving on. Board of Adjustment, entertain a motion for the City Council to recess and sit as a Board of Adjustment.

So moved.

Motion by Mr. Goldhammer. Second. Second by Mr. Schlangen. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Section hearing on application for Jalen Beck Conditional Use Permit. Jalen Beck is applied for Conditional Use Permit for the 10C-105C-3 Family Residential Daycare located at 1015 West Smith Avenue, legally described as shown on the agenda. Mr. Generalist.

Mr. Mayor and Council, notices were sent out to the name of our signs posted, a motion paper. We did not receive any responses for or against this. Planning Commission made a motion to recommend approval with the normal three conditions. That motion was carried. She has also passed a fire inspection already. applicant is here. If you have any questions for her, I can answer any for you.

Move to approve with conditions. Second.

Motion and a second. Further discussion? Anyone in the audience like to discuss this? All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Action and hearing on application for DBC LLC on behalf of Tom and Sherry Patzer variance permit. CBLLC on behalf of Tom and Sherry Patzer have applied for a variance permit for a 10-6B-5 front yard setback of 24 feet 6 inches versus 30 feet for a 10-foot covered entry addition located at 501 East Juniper Avenue, legally described as shown on the agenda. Mr. Jenegas.

Mr. Mayor, Council, notice was sent out to the neighbor, signs posted, published in the paper. We received one letter in favor of this. Planning Commission recommended approval of this. The applicant would like to put an overhang in front of the building for when he has Airbnb guests coming to stay at his place, that they have a dry entryway and also an area for them to grill. This would line up with the buildings to the west of this location as well. To answer any questions you have, the applicant is also here if you have any questions for him. Second.

Motion by Mr. Mercado. Second by Mr. Davis. Further discussion? Anyone in the audience like to discuss this? All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Actually set the date for the Board of Adjustment hearing of 10-5-26. Motion set the date. Motion by Mr. Smith. Second by Mr. Barrington. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Reconvene the City Council to entertain a motion for the Board of Adjustment to adjourn and the City Council to reconvene in a regular session. Second. Motion and a second. I didn't hear. Who made the motion? Mr. Barrington. Second by Mr. Goldhammer. Yeah. All right. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Hearing an action on the application to transfer RW 7571 retail on-off sale wine and cider license from Hone Property LLC, or Hone Partnership LLC, doing business as Platinum Players Club 3, 719 North Sanborn Boulevard, Suite 3 to Hone Partnership LLC, doing business as Platinum Players Club 4, 719 North Sanborn Boulevard, Suite 4, Chief Knippling. Mr. Mayor, City Council, Police Department has no concerns.

Recommend approval.

Thank you. Mr. Savers, seconded by Mr. Cardle. Further discussion? Anyone in the audience like to discuss this? All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Action to approve request for handicap parking on south side of 4th Avenue, east of Main Street.

Mr. Schroeder. Mr. Mayor, Council, the owner of 322 North Main has requested a handicap sign be added on the south side of 4th Avenue, east of Main Street, directly west of the alley. There's a map here for your location or for your reference. There are other locations of other restricted parking shown on the map. This brought to my attention back when we were doing the Main Street projects. We reviewed handicap requirements on Main Street and near Main Street. We reviewed that again recently and found that we are going to have to add some additional spots because we are short a few. This is one where One would be required. So we feel that just for future requirements that this should be approved anyway. And we will be bringing future locations back to council to be approved. So with that, I can answer any questions.

On handicap, Bill, the one across the street doesn't qualify.

That's a 15-minute parking, not handicap. The only handicap is that blue one shown by Wells Fargo, I believe.

Masonic Temple, yes.

Excuse me, Masonic Temple.

Yeah.

All right. Okay. And you said it'll be required down the road anyway? Motion approved.

Second. Second by Mr. Sumpkin. Further discussion? Anyone in the audience like to discuss this? Okay, all those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Action approved quote for Corn Palace Murals Project 2026-40. Mr. Schrader.

Mr. Mayor, Council, quotes were requested from three contractors for the 26 Corn Palace Mural Project. Only one quote was returned by pro-contracting. That bid was for bid schedule A for placing the new murals, $99,742.77. Okay. Bid Schedule B was for the removal of the current murals. That's listed at $38,519.28. The bid tab is attached for detailed information. Funding for the work would come from the Corn Palace Fund. Pro Contracting is the contractor who completed the murals last year. Staff does recommend awarding the quote to Pro Contracting for Bid Schedule A only for $99,740.77. Work would be started on October 5th or after and completed on or before November 21st. I can answer any questions you have.

Joe, could you highlight some of the changes to the process that they've considered doing for this year compared to the last year?

So we added a requirement that the white background needs to be cut out from behind the darker colored corn. So you won't see the white background if you saw some of it through before. The contractor himself has noted that after he did it last year, there's some things that he would definitely do it different. So the product last year I thought was good, but I feel we'll get an even better product this year.

We added the marquee too, and that was the change order last year.

Yep, correct.

I know with the white background, I mean, the gaps stick out. Are they going to try to make the gaps? I mean, they look pretty bad right now.

Yep. Yeah, their goal is to, he had ideas on how to make them tighter. We required that the white background be cut out behind the dart.

The white background there probably wouldn't look quite so bad, but there's some pretty good gaps there.

Yep. We got a year under its belt now, so it's maybe looking a little weathered by now. So the new ones will look nice.

I was going to ask also, Joe, that prior council was indicating that we were just wanting the murals done prior to when they were getting done well into the spring. And so I'm assuming that there's a date, a drop dead date on this particular contract.

November 21st.

There it is right there. November 21st. Awesome. Okay. And then what's the plan for removal?

It'll be our staff, Jeff, that'll, or Mr. Smith, that will take on that. So when we can get going and we know we're going to have corn ready, we'll start taking that part down. Jeff and his team.

What's the report on the corn? It's wet?

Yeah. Good so far. No alarm bells, but I know we sweated it out a little this summer.

Yeah, it was dry. Okay.

SECOND. SECOND BY MR. MCCARTHY. SECOND BY MR. DAVIS. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES HEARING ON SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR 2025 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AND 2025 NUISANCE ABATEMENTS AND ACTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION R26-57 FOR COLLECTION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the Council. At this time, we are holding a public hearing on the work that was completed last year for projects and nuisance properties. Notices were sent out to all affected property owners next to Puyallup Road or for nuisance abatements, which were for mowing, tree removal, nuisance properties, or snow removal incidents. If approved starting tomorrow, the property owners will have 30 days interest-free to pay their assessment amount. The last day of no interest is October 21st, 2026. The first day of interest is October 22nd, 2026. The finance office will be sending notices with yearly breakdowns that will show up on the property tax statement with additional information. The interest rate is set at 8%. If the property owner lets the assessment go on to their taxes, the paving and overlay project on Fiala Road will be a 10-year repayment plan, and the nuisance abatements will be a one-year repayment plan. These will be taken out of the first half of property taxes in 2027. Is there anyone with questions? All right, so then we can move into the resolution, and that's up to you guys.

Any questions? Looking for approval of the resolution, then. I'll make a motion to approve the resolution. I'll second. Motion by Mr. Simpkins, second by Mr. Greenway. Further discussion?

One quick question. The Federal Reserve Bank increased rates this week, and one of the items that we've always said is we don't want to be the bank, and so that's why we have a high interest rate. Have we ever considered raising the 8% rate, or does that seem to work pretty good with what we're trying to accomplish?

I'm sorry, can you repeat?

Yeah, the interest rate of 8%. Theoretically, we want that in place to deter people from paying us. And rates rose this week, and the indication from the Federal Reserve Bank is they're probably going to increase more. So I was just wondering, is 8% still a good percentage? And we don't have to act on it now, but maybe in the future we just take that into consideration.

So I would definitely have Michelle take a peek at that when she's back. Yeah, originally the rate was set so that it would be significantly higher than what you could get if you just went out and took a loan at the bank. So if those rates are starting to compress, it probably makes sense to look at that again.

What was the rates when that rule was made?

It was probably back at 2%, 3%. I mean, when they were really low.

So question, if we go down that road, is when interest rates were lower, 1% or 2%, did we as a city lower what we were charging folks?

No, because the intention was to try to make it so people were financing privately and not using the city as financing.

Yeah.

A deterrent. Yeah. You can look back at it at 8% is ringing my ears. I'm talking for like a long time. 15, 20 years. It's been eight years.

I guess a really long time then.

Okay. That's a discussion for later. Okay. Any further discussion or anyone from the audience? Okay. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Same sign. Motion carries. Hearing an action on approval of resolution R2026-58 tax levies to be certified to the county auditor.

I think I'm going to take that. That's what we were just discussing. Michelle couldn't be here tonight. Included in the packet is resolution 2026-58 that will certify to the county how much property taxes need to be collected in the upcoming year. Again, as was discussed in the budget work session, that dollar amount does include growth. So if you don't want growth included in your budget, you would need to let me know so I can amend that. Otherwise, I recommend approval of the resolution as presented.

Thank you.

maybe just as a history, sorry, maybe just as a history item for new council members. The reason why we're doing this now in September, it used to be that our budgets had to be approved by October 1st. So it was at the same timeframe that we were finalizing budgets. State law changed four or five years ago that allowed the city to adopt a later budget timeline, which is more advantageous for us because it gives us more time to look at what our sales tax dollars are, because that's the majority of how we fund what we do as city government. So we still have to follow the county's timelines that they need for certifying the levy. And that's why they're asking us to certify the property taxes before our budget's complete.

Move to approve. Second.

Second by Mr. Smith. Second by Mr. Barrington. Further discussion? Anyone in the audience like to discuss this? Okay, all those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Action to approve Resolution R-2026-60, declaring property surplus and authorizing the sale of city-owned property northeast to 23rd and Ullman, Mr. Schroeder.

Mr. Mayor, Council, staff is requesting Council consideration to surplus the city-owned lot directly northeast of the 23rd and Ullman intersection, as seen on the screen. The lot is approximately half an acre. Future access is limited due to construction of the roundabout. For with that, we would like to surplus it. And I'm going to turn it over to City Attorney Justin Johnson.

Thanks, Joe. The resolution was initially prepared, utilizing the auction procedure. But what we'd like to do is move this over to the sealed bid process. So we're asking that you approve the resolution, surplusing the property. with the amendment that we utilize the sealed bid process and that the mayor would be authorized to appoint a board to have the property appraised so we can go through with that process. And if somebody is looking for help on a motion, you just let me know if you need it.

Justin, can they get access to one of the roads? Because it could be a driveway in that property.

Joe can talk to this, but I think that there will be a restriction on there that there be no access off of either one of those roads.

It's a potential that you could do it off of the north side of the lot. But it would be, I don't want to say it's not safe, but it's not ideal. And ideally, if let's say an adjoining property owner purchases it, we would hope that they would use access from their current property versus utilizing an access that's adjacent to the roundabout.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Motion to approve. Mr. Sabers. Second by Mr. McArdle.

Further discussion? Just to confirm, that's with the amendments I mentioned. I'm moving it to a sealed bid. Yes. Thank you.

Okay. Further discussion?

Anyone in the audience like to discuss this?

Okay. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Second reading on Ordinance O2026-12, providing for runoff elections for Mayor and City Council, Mr. Johnson.

All right. The second reading on this item, there have not been any changes to the ordinance. There was one question that came in. since last meeting about whether we could change that 50% threshold. I did explain that that language is directly out of state law, so we would not have the flexibility to change that threshold. And I think with that, we can open it up to any other questions.

Mr. Smith?

Second.

Second by Mr. Goldhammer. Further discussion? Anyone in the audience like to discuss this?

Well, good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council. My name is Stuart Hanson. I wanted to talk a little bit about the 50% voting ordinance you'll be voting on tonight. In my opinion, the only reason this ordinance is being voted on is because some on this council didn't like the way the vote turned out for Mayor and one of the new council members, Mr. Davis. In a letter I sent to the editor, I said that at a previous meeting, the city council voted against term limits. So it was put to a public vote and 73% of voters overwhelmingly voted for them. Tonight, the council will be voting on this 50% ordinance, not because the people want it, but because some people on the council want it. If this ordinance passes tonight, I know a couple of people that are willing to take out a petition so it can be put to a public vote again. Terry Sabers also wrote a letter to the editor about this voting ordinance. In it, he talked about term limits, the term limits vote and said, oh, and by the way, our federal offices do not have term limits either, but that's not true. The most important federal office in the United States, the office of the president is term limited. He went on to say, it seems that we want some of the features that charter cities like Sioux Falls and Rapid City have, but not all. Then he asks, term limits are fine, but the 50% rule is not? That is an unfair statement. I'll say it again. Term limits was put to a public vote, and they, the public, the citizens of Mitchell, overwhelmingly voted to approve term limits by a 73 to 27% margin. This 50% voting ordinance is only being voted on by you, the eight sitting council members. Mr. Sabres also said, and I quote, our goal should be to have the best leadership in Mitchell, and this may make a difference. May make a difference. For someone to say that whoever gets the majority of the votes will be the best person for the job is ridiculous. Case in point, the last two presidential elections, depending on which party you belong to. There's a reason the plurality system of voting, which is whoever gets the most votes wins, has been in effect in Mitchell for over 100 years, because it works. Then he said, we will never know if the outcome of a runoff in the last major or mayor election would have been different. To be perfectly honest, if there would have been a runoff, I think the council and whoever else was against this mayor and Mr. Davis, for that matter, would have put all their resources together to try and make sure this mayor and Mr. Davis didn't win. Just look at the primary for governor. It was pretty close with Toby Doden leading, but in the runoff, Dusty Johnson gave all his resources to Governor Roden, and he won by a landslide. And we all know how money can affect an election. And not that it's anybody's business, but I did not vote for Toby Doden. So if the mayor would have lost in a runoff, this community would have lost. But more importantly, this community would have lost the best leader. Lastly, why are some in this community and some on the council so against this mayor? What are you afraid of? The mayor has no voting power except to break a tie. The mayor presents stuff to the council and you are the ones that make the decisions. So what is it? Is it because he's trying to be honest and transparent and some people don't like it? So I urge this council to vote no on this ordinance and keep the plurality system of voting in place because it's worked for over a hundred years.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'd like to just address some of Mr. Hanson's points. During the recent election, I canvassed some 600 of my neighbors' houses, going door to door talking to them. And in that, we had several conversations about term limits and what that might mean if they pass or don't pass. I was not surprised by the election results that occurred, as many of them indicated that they were in favor of term limits. As a part of that conversation, I brought up the idea of a runoff election to make sure that the best or most unified voice for Mitchell could be presented and most seemed in favor of that. One of the things that as we think about the best leadership, I wish that there was a way and I was the one that reached out to clarify that we cannot currently set the minimum to lower than 50% because of state statute. I have reached out to our legislative partners to try and get state law changed already as a part of that contingency to look at us being able to set that number lower or more in line with other runoffs that the state has similar to what the governor is or those kinds of things. And that would be something that they would hopefully bring forward in the upcoming legislative session. As far as term limits go, when we look at the number of candidates and the possibility of trying to increase the number of people running, which is my understanding was one of the large contingencies or reasons for term limits, we are going to hopefully see more candidates. This allows for more candidates to run and then the best candidate to then have a runoff with one other contender. So that way, rather than single issue candidates, we have multiple issue candidates that best represents the city of Mitchell. This has no bearing on previous elections and would not retroactively go back and change any previous election. And so to say that it is affecting the mayor or Currently sitting city council members is disingenuous because this wouldn't go into effect until the next election. And nobody on this board has indicated to me whether they are or not going to run. And so it has no impact on those future elections when I brought this forward. My hope is to get the best candidates available to run and allow them to create a system where they can run, have the ability to be the top and hopefully get 50%. And if not, let's look at the two best candidates or the two most vote-getting candidates and see if the city still feels that they should be the ones that win the election.

Anyone else?

So I'm not going to repeat all that, Tim, but it was very well said. And if that's a motion, I'll second you.

We already have a second and a first. Anyone else? Well, anyone else in the audience? Well, I'll just say if you guys pass this, I'm going to veto it. And I'm going to give you the following reasons. I'm not going to speculate on what would have happened in the past or what the reasons are. But I think I'm going to base my decision on the facts. The facts are no one from the public has ever asked me for this ever. And we're not leaders. We're representatives of those people. they may have asked you but they sure haven't asked me i've had more people ask me for chickens in their backyard than this so i don't want to bring chickens to town either that's my personal opinion but if enough people ask me we have to bring it to the table so i understand that second if we have a runoff election that's going to cost ten thousand dollars to do a second election that's about how much it costs to do free garbage pickup which is another thing people ask for a lot every year so i think if we're going to spend 10 000 bucks that's where i would rather put it for the things that people ask and i think this is just my personal opinion so this is a little bit of speculation is if we did this runoff people would be more afraid to run for elections because now they have to do two separate elections and the election thing is grueling i mean it is one of the worst times i've ever had in my life even watching it is awful when you're not involved in it i think we can all agree that an election cycle is not fun going for through two i think would be extremely stressful so those are my personal opinions just know that if you guys pass it i'm going to veto it And then I would challenge you guys to bring it to a public vote and see what the people want, because I think this is a huge impact.

One other thing that I forgot to mention is I've also talked to the county about the election process that our county and city currently use. And one thing that they're undergoing is looking at precincts and wards and seeing if there's not a better way for them to align the precincts with awards to lessen the number of people sitting during an election, which would then lower the cost of that election as a part of future different election processes that they're having going forward. Currently, for like my ward, for example, there are four precincts, which means that there could be multiple tables with three people being paid to sit at the election site. And so by consolidating that down into or how they do that, I'm not familiar with the final details, but that would also hopefully lessen the burden of the cost on a runoff election because that was something that I had heard as well. But hopefully that will help reduce the cost. It's not going to make the runoff free if we use the county to do those things, but it's certainly something that I'VE CONSIDERED AS WELL.

NEW SPEAKER ONE OF THE BIGGEST COMPLAINTS THAT I GET FROM PEOPLE IS THAT WE DO NOT SPEND RESPONSIBILITY. AND I DON'T THINK SPENDING MORE MONEY ON SOMETHING WE DON'T NEED IS WHAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANT. SO THEREFORE I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS AND I WILL VOTE NO.

NEW SPEAKER ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE VOTE?

Do we need to explain the veto process to new members?

The what process?

The veto process.

I'll explain it. If I veto it, it has to come back, and then you guys have to override it with the two-thirds vote. If you override it, it doesn't matter what I say.

Because I don't think we've done that with the new board yet.

Yeah. Okay. Let's do a roll call then.

Hi.

Hi.

Aye.

Greenway?

Aye.

Smith? Aye. Savers?

Aye.

Goldhammer?

Aye.

Davis?

No.

McArdle? Aye. 7-1.

Okay, motion carries. Motion to adopt ordinance O2026-12. Motion to adopt.

Second.

Second by Mr. Smith, second by Mr. Barrington. Further discussion? Anyone in the audience like to discuss this one?

I just wondered how many days before the petition's got to be in.

That has nothing to do with us time, so we'll have to figure that out later. Okay, anyone else? Okay, roll call.

Greenway.

Aye.

Smith.

Aye.

Sabres. Aye. Goldhammer. Aye. Davis.

Aye.

McArdle. Aye. Barrington.

Aye.

Schlemgen. Aye.

Motion carries. Motion to enter an executive session according to SDCL 1-25-23, Consulting with Legal Counsel SDCL 1919-502, Lawyer-Client Communications and SDCL 12525, Discuss the Marketing and Pricing Strategies of a Publicly Owned Competitive Business. So moved. Motion to enter an executive session according to SDCL 1-25-23, All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Motion carries.