City Council - Regular Meeting

call this meeting to order. Start with the pledge of 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. Next is invocation by First United Methodist.

For the invocation today, I just wanted to say how beautiful it is to have wonderful weather. Our church just put a new top on just two two weeks ago. And how many times are we going to have that? So today I'm grateful. Let's go to the Lord. Dear Lord, thank you for another great gathering that we can work together, another great gathering where we know that the peace and prosperity that you give to us is through our hands and through our hearts. Dear Lord, thank you again for giving us the blessings of today. Amen. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sabers here. Gold Ammer here. Doer here. Mardle here. Bington here. Bathsky. Charts here. Smith. All right. Is your chair broken over there? All right. Approval of consent agenda items. Items appearing on the consent agenda may be removed by a city council member for discussion at the beginning of the formal agenda items. Would anyone like to remove anything? Move to approve. Mr. Goldhammer second by Mr. McCurle. Further discussion.

Yeah. I just have one question on uh K the park board. Did we have somebody that just left it or? Yeah, someone resigned. Someone resigned some. Yep. Who is that? Uh Jessica Steel Cidell. Okay, she resigned. All right. Yep. What does Pat do? I don't think I know him. Um he's a realtor and he's the manager of Slumberland. No, Unclaimed Freight Furniture. Oh, okay. So, he manages that and he's a realtor on the side. Okay. Anyone in the audience? Okay. Vocal Bington. Hi Bathky. Hi Charles. Hi Smith. Hi Savers. Hi Goldhammer.

Hi Derer. Hi Mardle. Hi.

Okay. Motion carries. Public comment. If you need to address the mayor 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 but no action will be taken at this time. Would anyone like to address the council? Okay. So, I was asked to speak a little bit about the the rodeo, I'm going to call it the old rodeo grounds. They landed uh the Sue Area 4 rodeo club puts on a rodeo uh June 27th and 28th. They will have right around 200 to 250 participants and they just wanted to say thank you again for the bucking shoots and if you can buy there they've actually built a second arena for this so they've invested in it and they just wanted to say thanks for investing Mitchell and these people will come and stay in our community and hopefully spend money

and we had that before Mike do you know have any not to my knowledge so I visited with the lady to get the information right out of the horse's mouth. Uh oh. [laughter] And there's some uh they love to come to Metro. They want out of Sou Falls. That's where they were having it. They weren't being so much welcome there anymore. So, it's a good thing for Mitchell for 4. Yep. They'll have a uh on Friday night or afternoon, they do a It's like a king and queen of the rodeo. There's a name for it she used. And then the competitions Saturday and Sunday.

Great. Very nice. Anyone else? Okay, moving on. Board of adjustment. Entertain a motion for the city council to recess and sit as a board of adjustment. So moved by Mr. Goldberg, second by Mrs. Turks. All those in favor of the motion say I. Post same sign. Motion carries. Hearing an action on application for Bart and Nikki Frederickson. and Bart Nikki Frederickson have applied for a variance permit for front yard lakeside setback of 8 ft versus 35 ft for an existing addition in 2019 and a new addition of 20T 8 in versus 35 ft. This is located at 129 South Harmon legally described as shown on the agenda. Mr. Danigus,

Mr. Mayor and Council Planning Commission recommended approval of this um unanimous unanimously um with one abstension. Um notices were sent out to neighbors published in the paper signs posted. There were three letters returned in favor of this. Um, a little history, back in 2019, they did apply for a building permit for the north portion of their house. Um, and on that building permit, it says it meets setbacks, which it does not meet setbacks. So, we're going back with this uh request for the variance for the new addition, which is in the red on there of the 20 ft um and change and also the 8oot for the previous one that was done because that's non-conforming now. So, if they go to sell their house, they'll have some issues with that. So, it's approved tonight. Both of those variances would go into effect and that would be a legal nonforming house.

There was no opposition by Excuse me. There was no opposition by the neighbors. No, sir. I'll move to approve second by Mr. Bington. Further discussion. I don't know if the applicants here, but I'd be really curious about the pool where we're at. I don't know if the applicant has anything to say about that um at this point. We haven't had any petition at the city level for that to be undesated as parkland. Uh so really there's no update on it on our end until that happens.

So we'll still we still have liability out there. It it's the same situation it's been for the last year. Yeah. So, what direction should we go with that pool? Well, that's not even part of what we're talking about right now. Yeah. Well, I think it is part of it because Put it on the agenda, you said. Okay. Yeah. Excuse. So, the reason I think it is is we we've given him Are we on four years? It was I guess I'm cop with the since the auction and we knew it was over the boundaries.

Oh no, I think this was this came up probably after we did the auctions for the other for the other lots. I think this is a relatively new issue that came up. This is the pool issue that we're talking about, not the variance issue. The pool issue I think was a more mo a more recent issue than the sale of the other lake lots and things like that. Well, I know the owner has known for four years because it was when Mayor Eberson was here. So, I just think that we we do have an opportunity to tie this building permit to that whether he rectifies the situation. That's my opinion.

Yep. That that's up for the board of adjustment to consider. The reason I ask is after planning and zoning, one of the members asked me about it. After planning and zoning, where are we at with the pool? That's why I'm asking. Okay. Further discussion on that before we open up to the audience. Anyone in [clears throat] the audience like to discuss this? Okay. All those in favor of the motion say I. I. Oppose. Same sign. I.

Motion carries. Action to set the date for board of adjustment hearing 2-202-26. Kelsey Pins has applied for conditional use permit for a child care family residential located at 501 East16th lead described as shown on the agenda. Move to set the date by Mr. Goldhammer second. Second Mr. Mardle. Further discussion would anyone in the audience like to discuss this? Okay. All those in favor of the motion say I. I post same sign. Motion carries. to reconvene the city council entertain a motion for the board of adjustment to adjurnn and the city council to reconvene in regular session. So moved Mr. Goldhammer second second by Mrs. Chs. All those in favor of the motion say I.

I post same sign. Motion carries. Hearing an action on the application to transfer RL5353 retail on sale liquor license from Lab LLC 501 South Sanborn to FUPA Adventures LLC double doing business as double D's 512 South Sanborn. Chief Gatlin. Uh staff has reviewed this and spoke with the applicants. We have no concerns. Recommend approval. Thank you. Second by Mr. Saber. Second by Mr. Mardle. Further discussion. Anyone in the audience like to discuss this? All those in favor of the motion say I.

I. Same thing. Motion carries. Action approve special event permit application for Woodyfest on Saturday, June 27th, 2026. Move to approve. Mr. Goldhammer second by Mrs. Sharks. Further discussion. Would anyone in the audience like to discuss this? All those in favor of the motion say I. I. Same sign. Motion carries. Action approve agreement A. 20226-076th Avenue reconstruction engineering services with Mclar engineering project 2024-01. Mr. Shrader.

Yep. Mr. Mayor, councel, the Attached agreement provides a proposal for the design and bid of a new water man sewer storm sewer and complete reconstruction on 6th Avenue from Monita to Edmonds. The existing water man consists of outdated 4-in cast iron and sandcast pipe. The existing sanitary sewer is clay pipe. um design uh services will also include a boundary survey um for property lines and the city of Mitchell is completing the topographic survey. Um staff does recommend approving the proposed agreement with Mclau Engineering for an hourly not to exceed fee of 248,000 and I can answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Motion Mr. Sabers second by Mr. Hammer. Further discussion. Would anyone in the audience like to discuss this? All those in favor of the motion say I. I. Same sign. Motion carries. Action to approve agreement A 2026-08 water study agreement with SPN and associates project 2026-26. Mr. Shrader.

Yep. Mr. Mayor, Council, SPN and Associates completed a water system facility plan in August of 2016. This plan was placed on the South Dakota Department of of Agriculture and Natural Resources state water plan that same year. Adding the facility plan to the state's water plan allows the city to request funding which we have for many projects. Uh the plan can be renewed every two years. Uh the state is recommending we update our water facility plan. This report uh will review the city's distribution system and storage. SPN will utilize the old report to make updates and revisions as necessary. AE2s will be utilized to update the hydraulic model which they pro previously provided for the city. Uh this model will be utilized providing better DA data for proposed and recommended improvements. Um staff does recommend city council approval the attached proposal from SPN in the amount of 130,000 uh for civil engineering services described there and I can answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Move to approve. Motion by Mr. Second by Mr. Church. Further discussion. See the state's giving away a bunch. They they got to get get rid of a bunch of water fund money that they were talking about. If you see anything on the legislator with that, I saw something on the news the other night where they got I can't remember what the dollar figure was, but it was quite a bit of money. Maybe Stephanie, you can help me with this one. Was this one through their development fund? Not necessarily tied to their SRF. All the ARPA dollars are gone now. Um the future fund. Is that what it was? One. I saw it on the news the other night and there was a whole bunch of money they got to get rid of during this legislative session for take some of that. Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

Money. I know that the ARPA money that they had had a deadline to be expended, which we're probably up at that deadline. We have we have expended our dollars. Jeff might have some of that some of that if it was the ARPA money. Can you say your name for the people at home? Jeff McCorm not all of the ARPA money is spent. Some of that has this calendar year yet to do it. In fact, we have some projects that will be completed in this in this next year. So, some of that hund thousand could already be or likely is probably already under contract. So I want to say the state said that all ARPA dollars are contracted and expected to be spent by the deadline. Correct. Okie dokie.

But if there is money out there that we can get, we will certainly try [laughter] for it. Great answer. Okay. Anything else? Would anyone in the audience like to discuss this? Okay. All those in favor of the motion say I. I. Same sign. Motion carries. Action approve agreement A2026-09 wastewater study with SPN and Associates project number 2026-27. Mr. Trader.

Yep. Mr. Mayor, Councel, um same type of plan as our our water plan that we just uh approved, but this is for our sanitary sewer. Um our last facility plan was completed in January of 2020. Um this was also placed on the state water plant um which the state is re recommending that we update. Um this report will focus on the city's collection system. SPN will utilize their old report to make updates and revise as necessary. HDR engineering will be utilized to produce a hydraulic model of the sanitary sewer system. This model will be calibrated to our current wastewater collection system conditions allowing better data for proposed and recommended improvements. Staff recommends city council approval of the attached proposal from SPN in the amount of $192,000 for civil engineering services described therein. I can answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. [clears throat]

Mr. Mr. Smith, further discussion. I was going to ask Mr. Mayor, does this does this tie in with our new facilities? Is that the main reasoning behind this? And I don't know if you or Jim are or are looking at at at uh collecting it and or is it just looking re updating the plan we currently have? Both. Okay. Looks like Jeff would like to say some more. Well, I I'd say it's more of an opportunity to see what your next five 10 year plan is for future projects. And the state's going to need this in order to be able to fund projects. So, the only other thing I'll add is thank you for the opportunity.

Yeah. What the city's been focusing on for our replacement projects, uh, we've been targeting 4 in um, older water manes, uh, to get those updated to, um, 6 in. That's kind of been our focus. That's why this the six a project that came today uh, included 4inch cast iron pipe. I should add, Joe and I are trying to work on some tours of the new water facility and the wastewater facility. It's too cold to do it now. So, we'll do it in the spring or summertime. So, that'll be fun. And we'll open up to the council and then the public. So, it'll be all a really fun tour.

Yep. And something additional that'll be added to the water report is the lead and copper portion. So, that way we would be able to go and apply for funds through the state um either loan or grant to help with those projects. Okay. Any other questions? Would anyone audience like to discuss this? Okay. All those in favor of the motion say I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Action approve agreement A2026-10 design and bidding services with AE2s for meter vault for Randall Rural Water Project. Mr. Trader.

Yep. Mr. Mayor, councel, the Randle Rural Water to Mitchell project requires the city uh to add a meter vault downstream of the Randle Row Water meter vault. Um that would be located on our ground storage tank site. Um, city staff and AE2s have been working with Randle Ro Water and their design build team on that project. Uh, during that process, it was determined that the city would be required to have a separate vault um from the vault included in the project. City's meter vault will allow us to monitor water quality and assist in controlling flow to the city. AE2s was requested to provide the design and bidding services for this meter vault project. City staff recommends council approval uh for this agreement by AU2S at an hourly rate not to exceed $40,380. I can answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Move to approve Mr. Mardle. Second. Second by Mr. Goldhammer. Further discussion. Would anyone in the audience like to discuss this? All those in favor of the motion say I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Action to approve agreement A 2026-11 equitable sharing agreement and certification. Chief Caniplink. Mr. Mayor and Council, this agreement is a yearly agreement uh that allows the police department to be eligible to submit sharing requests to receive sharing proceeds to the Department of Justice. Uh this is the program which liquidated seizures are shared between state and local law enforcement or federal law enforcement.

Thank you. Move to approve. Motion Mr. Goldhammer second. Second by Mr. Mardle. Further discussion. Would anyone in the audience like to discuss this? All those in favor of the motion say I. I.

Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Action to approve agreement A 2026-12 par 3 golf concept plane plan with Norby. Mr. Nelson. Mr. Mayor and Council. This plan is a a concept plan, mean it's a basic overview or like a bird's eye view of the plan of what it'll look like. It's assume that it's going to be five to eight holes, a par three course. Uh it'll include the the routing that the yardage, but basically won't have the details of of the dirt work or the elevations on it. So, it's a it's a placeholder to get us on his schedule. And if this already would have been a part of the of the fees to start with, so it's it's just getting us started. $9,400 the total cost of this concept move

to approve by Mrs. Chs second by Mr. Smith. Further discussion. So is budgeted for,53 and we're going to spend 9400 I assume it come out of the golf fund. Or is that number wrong? That's a million million. Oh the whole project. That's part of the project cost. Correct. Just a comp. Okay. Anyone else? Anyone in the audience like to discuss this? All those in favor of the motion say I. I. same sign. Motion carries. Action to approve resolution R2026-05, property cleanup incentive policy. Miss Owen,

mayor and council, the resolution that's shown up on the board would, hold on one second, would establish a consistent policy outlining under what conditions the city would reimburse [clears throat] landfill fees for cleaning up properties within city limits. The policy was reviewed by staff for how the program could function within our city processes. So the way the resolution is proposed to qualify for uh a reimbursement incentive, the property would need to meet the following conditions. It would have to have existing conditions on the property that require the removal of structures or other items in order to use the property for new development. The improvements would have to be made on the property within 24 months of the cleanup. and those improvements would result in an increase in assessed valuation. The program would be limited by the amount of budgeted funds in a fiscal year. The reimbursement would be limited by the documented landfill cost and an application would need to be made on the approved city [clears throat] form prior to the cleanup. The reason for prior to the cleanup is so that we could require documentation of the existing conditions on the property before they start with the cleanup. If the policy is approved by city council, then staff would need to bring back the application format for discussion and approval. Um, also we would need to budget funds in the general fund to reimburse the landfill for any refunds issued for property cleanup. If the city council does not approve budget funds in any future fiscal years and the program would not be fiscal years, excuse me, then the program would not be available for that year. um really brought this as discussion following the comments that were made at the December board meeting when the city council approved a property cleanup incentive for Jeremy Jensen. Um this just kind of outlines the criteria. We would not be making the payment direct the city general fund

would not make the payment directly to the the individual. We would reimburse the landfill. the landfill would issue it as a refund or a refund out of the landfill fees. I can answer any questions. So they uh the developer would pay for the disposal of it and then within two years they would get their credit back. Yep. If they follow through. Yep. They'd have to document that improvement to the property.

Gotcha. I have a little experience in this. I did this. I just wanted to share some numbers. I I took a structure that was valued at $31,000. I tore it down and I tfolded the amount of that structure over 300,000. So the taxes and in theory the taxes will pay that back to the city over time. My goal with it would be to see more homes or dwellings or whatever cleaned up so we would get it would spur some development and put more dollars on the tax roll in the end. I do what how much was has Jeremy turned in any bills?

No, I got an email this week that he plans on starting soon. I think if it's used right, it'd be a great idea. I mean, if it's not abused by as long as it's not as long as you can see the improvements because there's a lot of properties that definitely need improvement around town. Yeah, that's why we made that requirement to make it nice. So, who who would oversee this in theory? We talked about that a little bit. It might probably make sense going through public works just because they're going to know what those landfill fees, but as with other programs, we're all going to work together on that application when it comes through. So yeah,

and I like having the 24month deadline to show progress. I think that makes a big difference. And obviously we can bring this back at another meeting if you want to see other things added or deleted. We just wanted to bring it up to start the discussion based on that conversation in December.

Do you see any loopholes of abuse come out of it? Um I think with the application format I that's what we're trying to circumvent and you know with the mayor adding that 24 months that the improvement has to happen that shows an increase in value. I I don't know how you could abuse that. Um it's going to be limited to whatever is available budget-wise. So there might be years that there's nothing available. There might be years that there is some available. That's going to be up to council to determine what you budget. Yeah. We thought about the loophole thing a lot like you can't just clean up your yard. It has to like it's got to be a taxable property item to increase value. So we worked through a lot of the loopholes and I think we're all closed.

I was trying to initially think of it nothing was jumping at me. So I thought well see if anybody else's brain was clicking the same way. And I guess the reason why um at least from my perspective talking about the increase in assessed value that pro provides the reasoning for why we're supporting it. Um we're going to see that revenue come back to the city that we're reimbursing the the landfill fund. Um yeah, we do have a time every year during spring clean up when you can take your stuff to the dump if you're just throwing away things for free as a city resident. So this is something completely different. This is to incentivize development or redevelopment within the community.

All right. As I as I look at this, I just want to make sure that I'm understanding that it doesn't necessarily need to be a company. It could be an individual that qualifies for this as well. Perfect. So, is the definition of improvements actually completed? Because I think we've all been involved in projects that take a little longer than 24 months. That's a great point. or if they're showing that, you know, they're they're starting the project or I think we could put that in the application process, right? Or just what get reimbursement though until the project starts, right? Till it's completed.

So, I guess what what I would say on that is that it's going to have to be done to a level where it increases the property value. So, I don't know at what point the county would consider that, but if it's not done to the point where the county considers it complete enough, then it's not going to be acceptable for us. Could we put in the the application substantial completion or does it have to go on the ordinance part? Guess we missed.

We could change that to say are completed on the property within 24 months if you'd like. I mean, if they think it's going to take longer than 24 months, then maybe they need to wait to apply until they can see the end of their project. And the reason why that timeline's in there is you don't want to give the reimbursement and then to have a property just cleaned off and nothing else happening on it for the next 10 years. This was to incentivize a quick turnaround on that improvement being made,

but we can certainly change that to our completed Is there any way you can know back to what you were referenced Justin with the county approving that it is increased in value or however you know you word it a little bit. I mean is there any way that we can we're not holding them liable but just referencing that

to me I think the language that's there that says improvements require an increase in the assessed value of the property to me I think that covers the situation well enough. Could we create a condition where somebody could apply for a variance to that as a part like if they knew that they were the development that they were doing was so robust that it might be a fiveyear plan that they could request a variance to the two-year time frame. I don't know just as an option that if I'm taking down maybe three or four houses to build something a little bit more substantial that that could be something that we consider. I wouldn't that just come separately?

I I think to that point, Tim, is you got to remember that th this is just a resolution. Um the council can always revisit these requirements at any time, pass another resolution to modify the criteria. So, um it's not like you're setting this in stone forever. This would be how we're starting into it. if we come and find that there's issues with the way that it's, you know, being administered or if there's other items that you want to add into the eligibility requirements, we can always bring this back for further discussion and modification.

So Justin, in your your view of this, would it would every one be treated separately and voted on by council or just staff? the way that I think this was intended and maybe Stephanie and the mayor can comment on this, but I don't think that it was set up for council to be voting on these individually. I think the intent was for council to set the criteria and approve the application form and then the staff would be handling the individual requests. Yeah, that was the intent. I'm good with that. I just was asking I just I totally trust Joe and the crew to make a good decision.

Yeah. No, and if there was an issue, we we'd run that through the mayor or Stephanie to convey that to council. Um if there were any other additional requests that say we couldn't approve the way it was written, then it would be brought back to you. So you would be notified of that and then if you feel like you needed to make a change, then at that point you could like Justin said.

And again, um and you probably saw in the staff report, there wasn't a recommendation for approval. This is just really for your discussion if it's something you want to implement. The idea was to have a consistent way to address people um under the same criteria that could get approved. So, we're being fair and consistent with everyone who's applying based on the budget funds available. Um I think it would be no problem to do uh you know, we do monthly updates on all the departments on the second meeting of every month under department reports. There's a monthly update. We can certainly give an update on any of these that are filed as well. So, I think you can go any direction council wants to go. We're just bringing it back for discussion to see where you want to go with it.

And I think we discussed like Mahi how they were getting their subsidies through this. This kind of would take care of that as well, right? Yeah. I mean, obviously Mahi could apply if they're if there's a nuisance property that they're cleaning up to build a new house on. This would still qualify. Or anyone else doing the same thing, right? So, this is how I would envision it is each applicant would only be able to go to some dollar amount, like say $5,000. So, someone doesn't come in and take all the money and do a development and four other guys say, "Gosh, I was going to clean mine up, but there's nothing left."

And I and so I I'm I think there's a few different ways to address that potential problem. Um, one thing to keep in mind is that th this program, they might be doing the improvement right now, but they're not going to be eligible for payment until a future year. So, council should have an idea of how much

there is sitting out there for an obligation before they budget for that for when it would be paid out. So, I think council's going to have oversight on it that way, just by the nature of the way that the program works. My fear is what Councilman Mardle and Marty said here is that one person that decides to abuse it and so they go and say, "I'm going to tear my own building down. There's $50,000 available, but it's only on landfill fees."

Yeah, correct. What I was going to mention is that um Jeremy Jensen's request I think came out to like 2,200 bucks and that was a conservative amount um that council approved. So I feel like you would have to do some substantial uh demolition to spend any what I you know what they would consider substantial amount of money for removing buildings. But if you feel more comfortable, I think you could absolutely add a criteria up to $5,000 without, you know, as a limiting factor before it comes to council or something like that. Oh, like automatic approval up to 5,000 and over it comes to the board. Then it triggers. Is that something that needs to happen in the resolution or in the application? Probably I would list it in the resolution so we know how we're operating.

But we can amend I would Can you amend it now or does it have to come back if we No, you can amend it now. So, you could amend the resolution now to say um applications up to $5,000 would be handed handled administratively. Dollar amounts above that would come back to council for final review. Is 5,000 the number we're looking I don't know what the dollar number just like okay that sounds good. Is 5,000 the number you think or is 10,000? I think Tam's

I know the the house I did I believe the I had shown other construction too I got the bill but I believe the landfill fees were a little over $5,000 and they obviously the foundation did not go there they repurposed it and ground it or whatever but that was just house was not a very large house but that you know Jeremy's building different is this is a wood structure it's an old this had sheetrock and you know mortar and stuff in with it so you're adding weight which the cost goes up so we don't want to make it too cumbersome So 7500 10,000 5,000 I'd say 5,000 is a good number and then if it's over five they can bring it to us.

I I actually like that too because they need to put some skin in the game too. If we get 5,000 and sunrise them they got to pay 2500. I think that's a pretty good deal. Well they they got to pay everything right up. This is the reimbursement part. All right. Okay. So it's everyone go to 5,000. So, amend the resolution to automatic approval up to 5,000 could be approved administratively. Any requests above that dollar amount will go to council for final review and approval. I'll second that motion. Okay. We got a motion by Mrs. Sts. And just to clarify the motion, the motion is to

motion at this point would be to amend the resolution to include the language about the $5,000 Okay. Yes. Perfect. Yes. [laughter] Okay. Further discussion. Would anyone in the audience like to discuss this? Okay. All those in favor of the motion say I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Action approve resolution R 2026. We'd still need a motion to approve the resolution as amended. I'll make that motion. Second.

Okay. We got a motion by Mr. Smith, second by Mr. Goldhammer. Approve resolution as amended. Further discussion. Anyone in the audience like to discuss this? All those in favor of the motion say I. I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Action to approve resolution R2026-06 vacation of public rightway portion of Bailey Metal Fab Alley which is adjacent to the GHB property in Sheesley property and the Duff Dens property. Mr. Trader.

Yep. Mr. Mayor, Councel, uh the legal description is included in the staff report and I will not uh read that. Um [laughter] so uh all property owners have uh signed the petition. Those property owners are uh Bailey Metalfab or excuse me, it is a Bailey Metalfab alley located near uh 9inth and Raleigh. Um adjacent property owners are GHB property, Sheesley property and Duff Dens property. Um planning commission a motion to recommend all voting for uh the vacation and I can answer any questions you may have.

I drove by that alley and it goes nowhere. So I'll make a to approve it. Motion by Mr. Mardo, second by Mrs. Shs. Further discussion before. Anyone in the audience like to discuss this? All those in favor of the motion say I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Second reading on ordinance O26-01 modifying redevelopment neighborhood boundaries for discretionary formula purposes. Mr. Johnson.

All right. same ordinance as last council meeting. Um, again, just the basic purpose on this one is to uh repeal the old uh redevelopment neighborhood that we created downtown and replace it with these three new larger districts. Um, again, the old district would be included within the boundaries of one of the new districts. So, we're not losing any ground. This just uh extends the eligibility for these additional areas to claim that residential uh redevelopment neighborhood discretionary formula. Thank you.

I feel like tonight is a night of um forward thinking and um making sure that we are giving people every opportunity to clean up areas of town that need to be redeveloped. So, I'm going to move approval of this. I am excited to see the things that the progress that we're making in that that direction. Thank you. Motion by Mr. Sharks. Second. Second M Goldhammer. And I would agree. We are trying to make things nice and easy for growth. Okay. Further discussion. What do you want in the audience like to discuss this?

Thank you, Mayor, members of city council. My name is Steve Sepson. I do own a property in one of these proposed districts. Been there for almost 25 years. Um second, I've walked many of these streets in these districts on political campaigns and I have not come to the conclusion that there's a predominance of deteriorated site improvements as stated in this ordinance as I walk into properties. There might be a few of those, but I would think that there's zoning ordinances that will cover the few that fit that definition. Uh, the ordinance refers to South Dakota Codified Law Section 11-7-3. I spent the last couple of days studying uh chapter 11-7 of the state statutes that's titled county and municipal housing and redevelopment. And what I found was 11-7-3 and you go to 11-75. It talks about the definition of a redevelopment project and it's to acquire slum areas or blighted areas as defined by 11-7-3 including land structures improvements the acquisition of which is necessary in order to asssure the proper clearance and redevelopment. So then I go what's this acquisition about and what I what I come to understand is the discretionary formula is not going to land owners. And we already have a a small district and nobody's taking advantage of the discretionary formula. What this is going to uh benefit are the developers

who eventually will get that property for redevelopment. And there's only one other step that needs to be done and our property rights for all property owners in these districts will be game over. And that would be uh the uh approval by this body of the housing and redevelopment commission. It's in the statute, state statute that you guys can do that once these uh districts are established. And then these are the powers that that commission would have. They would have powers of eminent domain. They would have power to act as an agent of federal government over these properties. They will have the power to determine what is blighted. They have the power to hold, improve, lease or dispose of the property. They will be all properties that they do obtain will be exempt from taxation. No property taxes from these properties will be going to the county and the school system. And they have the power to issue bonds. So what they can do is they can borrow money, offer to buy your property, and if you refuse to sell, they can pull eminent domain on you and take it from you. I think this is the problem. I'm asking you to reconsider this idea that if we do have blighted areas in this town, I would hope our zoning would take care of it. But what we can set up is a two-step process. pass this ordinance, set up a commission, and they can do more than just uh use zoning. They can use eminent domain to to have what they want. And the big beneficiary again will be the developers. They will get the properties for development and they'll probably wave the discretionary formula in order to have a 20-year tiff where they get

100% of the tax benefit, not just a portion over five years. So again, this is not a good idea. I'm adamant about this not being passed tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience like to discuss this? Okay. All those in favor of the motion say I. I. Same sign. Motion carries. Motion to adopt ordinance 026-01. Motion by Mr. Goldhammer. Second by Mr. Savers. Further discussion. Would any of the audience like to discuss this part? Okay. Roll call. Hi. Mardo.

Hi. Bington. Hi. Bathsky. Hi. Charts. Hi. Smith. Hi. Savers. Hi. Goldhammer. Hi. Motion carries. Hearing and first reading on ordinance 02026-2 resoning of the lots shown on the agenda. Mr. Dennings.

Mr. Mayor. Council Planning Commission recommended approval of this unanimously. Notices were sent out to neighbors published and paper signs posted. There were three letters returned in favor of this. Um the applicant came in to request resone. I believe that's 524 is the south uh rectangle there. Um because they are purchasing that property and it's contingent on the reszones that they can put a parking lot there in the future. Um with looking at that lot and then where the church is currently at, um they've got some different zonings for the church. So they'd like to also clean that up to make that as to neighborhood chopping. So that's it's conforming now. So it's the correct use for that piece of ground. Um there was discussion about vacation of an alley. There's no vacating of an alley that's going on. Um because there isn't on lot 10 there that is still a house that he still needs access to it. The vacation of the alley portion is to the south that was done previously. Um so answer any questions that you have.

Thank you. Mr. Sabers second. Second by Mr. Goldhammer. Further discussion. Anyone with the audience like to discuss this? All those in favor of the motion say I. I. Same sign. Motion carries hearing and first reading on ordinance 02026-03 reszoning as shown on the agenda. Mr. Jennigus.

Mr. Mayor. Council planning commission recommended approval of this unanimously. Um nurses are sent out the neighbor sign posted published in the paper. There were six notice or six six responses that were in your packet that were in favor. I did receive one more today that was in favor. There was no comment on that so I didn't print that off for you. Um Railroad Pines purchased this property a few years ago. They parcled off one of the houses out there. Um Dan and Diane Delores um is Railroad Pines LLC. So they would like to plat their existing ground with Railroad Pines into one lot. But one's R4, one's urban development. So they're reszoning um so that way they can plat the two lots together to get egg status. I can answer any questions that you have for me.

Move to approve by Mr. Chs. Second, Mr. Savers. Further discussion. Would anyone in the audience like to discuss this? All those in favor of the motion say I oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Discussion on requiring survey before acquiring a building permit. Mr. Mr. Baty, would you like to start this one?

I guess it stems from two or three different situations that we've stumbled across here lately like the Habitat for Humanity. Uh there was a we approved I believe at the last meeting gentleman had just built a garage where he wanted to and we had to give a variance for it after the fact. Uh the one tonight we gave a variance after the fact. Uh I just think it's time we I've said it numerous times that we at least consider it. And uh Joe and I had a good talk before the meeting and maybe maybe what we should do is it tie it to if you come for variance. It ties to your building permit that that you need to do it. So that you I mean you're you obviously if you're getting variance you're going over the allowed space to go without a variance. So I just felt it was time to address it. I've talked with a couple of the guys on the planning and zoning and they thought the same thing like like I told Mark I'm not trying to take his job from him but I think it would make the job easier and cleaner and if you if you didn't do it or chose not to do it and you did build over there would be a fine type to it. uh what that would be. I don't know. I just thought that I discussed it with Mayor Hansen. I'm like, you know, I think it's time we at least consider doing something. I am absolutely pro build. Anybody that knows me, I want to build everything. Uh so I don't want it to hinder any building, but I do think we need to make sure that if we're giving these variances because nobody goes out there and checks them. So they could literally build over unless someone was to turn them in, but there's nobody going out there to check that to see if they fall in there and taping it off. So if they hire SPN, Mclowery or somebody else, a survey on a normals size square lot is about $500.

U I don't think that's in the big picture anything anymore that anybody's done any building. $500 on a even a remodel job anymore is over $100,000. So, I don't see it being a situation. And if I was in the the construction business, I'd want to know that I was right. So, you don't end up with a situation where I mean, I've never seen us deny anybody, but it could happen. So, that's the only reason I just wanted to discuss it. So, has it been a problem in the past? I mean, like, is this something that's like a prevailing problem that we're dealing with on a regular basis?

Um, I think Mark, you gave me some numbers. I don't remember if they were there laying here. But, uh, first of all, how would we know? Well, we'd know. We would know because we would have people we would have issues that are arising from How would you know? You wouldn't know unless you sold that property and by chance the surveyor says, "Hey, just case you know." That's why believe Mr. Frederickson was cleaning this deal up tonight so he could make his property salailable someday. So why not address it up front instead of waiting for him to come in after the fact? Because like I said, we never say no.

So I'll I'll start uh and Mark can fill in where I misspe. Um Mark did some uh leg work. Um he looked back to 2018 uh there were 117 uh variances that were requested. Of those he pulled uh 16 that were related to that could be related to a um surveying issue. Um I would say majority of them first arose with people not getting a building permit initially and were either turned in or found. Um and then we we corrected them. Um at that point um believe there were four um that if a survey would have been uh initially completed and followed correctly that um a variance would not have been uh required. Um we have had some instances where say they pull from the back of the curb when they think they should be pulling from the back of the sidewalk and a building gets put in the wrong spot. Um so it it does happen. Um, but out of all of that information, I'd say it's yes, it does happen, but I would say it is uh definitely not normal.

Yeah, I'd agree with that. Um, more accountability isn't a bad thing. I I would agree with Mr. Bathy on that part of it. Um, John Egg called here on and he called Harrisburg to see what their protocols were and he said nobody in the state requires it for all of their building permits. Um, and could it be required for some and not others and maybe have some constraints on it? Yes. Um, more commercial stuff, we usually have site plans with them. Um, residential for new builds, the site plan that you're getting with your house usually has where the setback is and the structures fitting within that. Um, your additions, things like that. That's where a lot of the um, discrepancies happen. um in older parts of town where where the pins aren't there um going to cost some more money. It's going to take some more time because of how busy some places could be for when they could get out to that job site to look at it. So, it's a good discussion to have. I don't disagree with that, but I don't know what the correct path moving forward would be. I um just have a problem like slapping a $500 added fee on everybody when it's at this point it's a pretty minuscule percentage of what we're doing that's causing a problem if we're requiring it on the large commercial projects. Um and then uh I mean I don't know I just I guess I have a hard time making this blanket. um fee that everybody's going to have to pay regardless of what they're doing. And so every time they go to get a building permit, they're going to have to pay $500. I have I guess I would rather see us if we're going to do something like this. Let's put some other parameters on it so that we can make sure that we're dealing with the people that we need to deal with as opposed to the needle in the hay stack

where we may or may not find something but they're going to have to pay the $500 regardless. I kind of agree because we're already considered really not a bis businessfriendly building community because we got a lot of fees and people I mean as far as Mitchell's concerned I think that we got a bad reputation for having a lot of extra fees and that's compared to other towns and that's why a lot of people don't build here.

It's only 500 bucks but 500 bucks might scare some people out of here. And the irony of this in my mind is that we just passed all of these things that are making life easier for people to make improvements on their homes and on any lighted properties or whatever. But now we're going to say, "Oh, but by the way, you're regardless of what your project is, you're going to have to pay an additional $500 um so that we can survey this." And it may not even I mean it may be obvious that we don't need to survey it, but it's required. you know, requiring a survey. So, I would I would not be in favor of this as it's proposed unless we can put more parameters on it that is going to make it so that, you know, every every single project isn't looking at this added fee. I would rather we be that building friendly community that we're trying to be.

I I think it's fair to say that probably 90% of commercial properties have a legal survey done. Um, regardless, um, I don't think it would be a bad thing where there are very tight constraints and say their plot plan has them right up against both setbacks and maybe even setbacks in the back that right now we we would strongly recommend they do, but it's not necessarily required. Um, variances actually wouldn't be a bad thing because if they request the absolute minimum and it's not perfect, um, you potentially could put yourself in requiring another variance. Um, so no, I I definitely think it's there are some issues that could be considered if council did want to um move that direction.

Well, the percentages that you're talking about are are pretty small. So, yeah, I think that if there are if you look at those 4% or the 16 percent or whatever it is that that are requiring um that you would say should have required a survey. Let's see what those circumstances were and maybe we can create a policy that or a um an ordinance that would be more that would fit the circumstances better rather than just making it cover everybody whether they need it or not. Uh, one of the things that I thought about with this is also overall expected project cost, but I don't think that, you know, if somebody wanted to put a one or two stale garage up, I don't think you're going to come close to the $100,000 mark that you talked about a little bit ago, but rather and so I don't know if there's a dollar portion about it. I mean, yes, you can build some really nice garages. Um, but I think there's also a cost-effective way to do those kinds of things. And so, I think that could be a component to this as well, an overall like project that to make it make sense for that.

Stephanie, I don't know if you can pull up Mark and I disagree on this, but we're going to pull up 103-3 of the board adjustment powers and duties. This is what kind of led me down this path. Is this stuff? No, it's just our code.

Yeah, it it just like I said, you guys put me on planning and zoning, so that's where I'm at. So, I I hear it from these guys. They're like, how come we're always getting these? How come, you know, how do we stop it? And to me, the easy thing, yes, it's $500. I agree. It is. In the big picture, though, I done a lot of building. $500. There's not a lot of money when you build anymore. But it shows. Yeah. All the way to the bottom. Uh 1a right there. So, I read it as, and I'm not an attorney. We all know that. A survey site plan or sim document prepared by a registered land surveyor. Mark, you read it as

one, two, or three. So there's, you know, the certified. I'm just using Mr. Frederickson's. He's not a land surveyor. This is just a drawing. We don't know that drawing is right. Oh, so you're saying one, two, or three? That's the way I Justin, am I reading that correctly? You're talking about the the beginning of one a there, a survey site plan or similar documents. Yeah. Yep. You would read it as any one of those three. Oh, I see. So, in in my opinion, it's in our code already that it needs to be done by a registered lancer.

So, it's already in there. And this is this is strictly tied to the board of adjustments and variances. Two variances. Yes. And that's variances or to a build a building permit. That's just to variances. Oh. So if you get a variance, you're technically supposed to have something by a surveyor. They're supposed to prove the burden of proof is on them. That that's what it is. [clears throat]

Okay. Okay. So, the intent the intent of this was from what Mike just told me is so someone doesn't have to let's just say in the future someone builds something and then we're like no that doesn't make sense. You have to rip it out, right? I mean, that's kind of the intent. I don't know if it doesn't have to necessarily be a survey at the building permit. Maybe there's something else that these guys can figure out that solves that problem without a survey, right? I don't know what that would be. I don't know. That's why it's discussion, right? Yeah. That's why it's good discussion. That's why I want to talk about it. Yeah.

Site plan boundaries with your setbacks that show it's your document that you're handing it over or saying that here is okay. Yep. Okay. Any other discussion? [clears throat] Anybody else before we conclude? Anyone in the audience want to talk about this? Why we got it? Okay, then we are journ.