City Council - Regular Meeting

Call this meeting to order. Start with the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America [clears throat] and to the stands nation. Roll call. Sabers here. Goldhammer here. Doer here. Mardle here. Barington here. Bas Smith and hear her. Okay.

Okay. We'll start with the first one. Reconsider action to award bid for tornado shelter rebid project 2023-33. I think we got some more information. You want to start with Terry or or Mark?

Mr. Mayor, Council Mark Jennus, um we've been talking with some contractors about possibly rebidding for a third time to try and get this down a couple hundred,000. We're told that if we go maybe with a CMU block filled with uh um rebar in it instead of poured concrete walls, it could come down a couple hundred,000 again. Um, so I guess we're asking if you want us to proceed with a third rebid, which there could be some cost associated with it for a redesign um, and a peer review and structural review um, that we'd have to do. Whether or not you guys would still accept a third bid if it is a couple hundred,000 low,

if we do the the rebidding, will that affect the grant at all? We got timelines we still Okay,

we could still get that with the grant. um going this route we could do that yes timeline I don't think it would change for when construction could start or stop with that or would start or stop with that um with being the park lays on and um did some research I was kind of either I didn't do my homework or I wasn't informed my homework either way um I wasn't prepared for what I was what was brought to me on Monday but after I did a lot of checking out on this you know um I am going to back this project and um but if we could save 100,000 is that going to hamper the uh the project at all, make it better, worse, it would still stay within the standards for FEMA.

I understand that it same layout is what we were planning before. It's just the construction of the walls. Um I can let Terry speak to it a little bit better than I can.

Okay. So, when we bid the project, we bid it as pre-cast concrete walls. We talked to some contractors about what are some things we could change to make it a little cheaper, but still make it uh the FEMA, you know, standard that we would need to follow. We talked about um concrete [clears throat] block filled with concrete on the inside and then put rebar um inside of that uh which would be acceptable as part of FEMA. That would lower us just with that. We figured we can lower it a couple hundred thousand. Um then we also talked last night about poured concrete walls. I think we get even cheaper than that. So I would like to have the opportunity to rebid this thing. talked to some contractors about what are things we could save. Uh before we were going to do all the piping um inside the walls so it would make it a little bit more expensive but it would be easier to clean things like that. But if we mounted that those conduits and things like that to the inside of the wall which is still safe, we could save some more money. So I think there are things we could do to get closer to our original budget. And to be clear, the grant will not be hampered if we do another rebid.

Correct. Because we extended it for another year. So Oh, I thought that we were like down to the wire with this. We can Oh, we can't extend it for another year. Yeah.

Okay. So, so the timelines that we were dealing with is the previous bid had to be awarded within a certain time frame and we're at the end of that time frame and the option that they're talking about starting with another rebid would make sense to bring the cost down but only makes sense if the council wants to proceed with the project if we can bring the cost down. We don't want to keep asking for extension and forgiveness from the grant and burn bridges in the future. So really, we only want to go through that rebrid process if council's intention is to move forward with the project if we can get it within closer to budget if that makes sense because we don't want to burn those bridges with a grant as well. Does that sound? Okay.

Yeah. So I'll give a little context. So after the last meeting, I think it was the next day we we were talking about well we should probably at least remodel the bathrooms because there's not a lot of comfort in those comfort stations. So we we we did a rough bid and I think it was 200 thou between 150 and 200,000 just to remodel the bathroom. So we wouldn't get an additional storm shelter or anything else. So if you're going to sink that cost, it'd be about the same cost as building a new one. So that was one of the options. And then we also went and tried to see if we can save some money. So now we have kind of well three options. Do nothing, just do the remodel, or do something new. And Terry and the crew saved a little money. So

well, I know it doesn't come as a surprise to anybody, but I am in favor of this project. So, I'm going to move approval of the um action to award the bid um for the tornado shelter and rebid the project. So, then those are different things. Yes, I'm just reading it off. Number four. So, the item number four would be reconsider awarding the bid as was discussed on Monday. So, that's the the the larger project, the higher cost. If council wants to reject that and direct staff to go forward with another bid, we can do that. But like mayor said, those are two different considerations. What's the timeline, Terry? Yeah. To rebid 30 days.

It'd be Yeah, roughly a month and a half. So, I guess before we do all that, we'd decide if we want to do you. This is for pre-cast, right? Yeah. Even or uh Yeah, we would just do it probably poured concrete wall or concrete block. I think concrete block is probably not I think what we probably end up doing from what I'm hearing from last night was poured concrete actually uh out in the field poured concrete walls. And you think you could save how much with that? I think I get within budget. Wow. Or close to budget.

So caveat always with that. Um our uh cons our architect originally told us that they thought uh CMU walls or pre-cast would be more or excuse me CMU or port in place would be more expensive than pre-cast. We're hearing from the biders that it's a potential that uh CMU or pre-cap or pre- poured, excuse me, poured in place walls would be cheaper. Um we would still need those designed to make sure that they're at the uh rated uh storm shelter rate um and recommend if we did that to rebid it to see where those costs actually fall in with being designed to the storm shelter um design. Justin, what would you like the motion to be?

I guess it it depends on which way council wants to go on this. If they want to do the rebid, then they would not need to take any action here today other than to direct staff to go through the rebid process. So, you don't need a motion because at the last meeting, you guys already rejected the the bid. So, there's no further action necessary there. If you want staff to go and through the rebid and redesign process, we would just get that direction and start going through that process. Mike, I think you brought this up. You agree with all that? [clears throat]

Yes. I've actually done one of these out of poured walls for Corsio Lake. Very small compared to this. But I do think it's the I came here prepared to say do the pre-cast walls and get this done. But if we can get it back in a month and a half and still get it done this fall, I do think it's the best way to go. And I do think you'll shave a couple hundred,000 off of it. And there's I don't want people to think like this you want it uh looking nice and with the pre-cast walls it was going to look beautiful. I actually asked if there's a drawing that wasn't, but I just seen enough of it to know it would look nice. With the poured walls, you can do a lot of the same things. There can be some decorative concrete on it that makes it look aesthetically pleasing, I guess you could say, at the the campground. I do think it's the right thing to do to to rebid it. [clears throat]

I I don't know. Is is Larry Jersey? Okay. I mean, he should be very familiar with this. I think he was the one that did the one of course. Would Am I allowed to ask is would everyone be in favor of if we did pre or not uh but poured on site? Yeah. Would everyone be on I mean then we'd be within budget. We maybe be on closer to budget. Closer. Thank you for correcting me. I was one of the nos. If you can get closer to budget, I'm all in. Okay. I was a no also and I do the same. Okay. So, it sounds like we have affect our the the grant at all.

No, I think we're in the same boat. Uh whereas if the bid is awarded in the next two months, we'd ask for an extension right away, uh the project probably won't be completed until sometime in 27. Um but if if the project gets completed and all those fall in line, I think that's a good thing. So hopefully they'll um understand that we're all acting in good faith. We just want to make sure that we're doing, you know, doing what's best to be fiscally responsible. Just just so we're clear, I assume I see Mr. Schmidt's back there that this still would be partially pre-cast because this the roof would be pre-cast, right?

Correct. Yeah. So, we have general consensus to go off rebid with poured concrete walls. Okay, that's what we'll do then. Thanks to the staff for working on that. Everyone's working like busy bees trying to pick me up. I just want to say I think we still should allow them to they said they were adjusting their numbers for the pre-cast so we have something to compare it to because if it's only okay $100,000 difference we need to decide if we want to do the pre-cast. So bring them both if they're different. Yeah, that design's already done. So we'll just add the two and we'll end up with three alternates. Can we agree that the cinder blocks is probably not the way to go? [clears throat]

Okay. I think you need to bid them all in line whether it's get all the information then and then council can decide. So you're right there will be a look change with the CMU walls. Okay. [clears throat] Okay. Any other questions before we move on? Does anyone in the audience want to talk about the tornado shelters? Is that why you all are here? Okay. Action on referral petition for agreement A2026-18 transfer of redevelopment agreement for East 1st Avenue project. Mr. Johnson, why don't we start with you?

All right. So, um, as indicated in the staff report, uh, the council did pass the agreement A2026-18 at the, uh, 1st February meeting. Uh we did receive a referral petition on that on I think it was the 27th of February just inside the deadline uh to file that petition. Um also indicated in the staff report, it does appear that an older version of the form was used. Um, so it's going to be up to council here today to decide whether they want to consider this a valid petition and if so, uh, what election we want that placed on. And with that, we can open it up to questions, comments. Who wants to go first?

I can start out. [clears throat] I talked to the secretary of state yesterday. I called him yesterday morning and I asked him the process of uh the petition. I got a bunch of stuff written down here. So, I'll be reading some and they said, "I'm not a computer guru." So, they they said, "Are you on the computer?" I said, "Yep." They said, "Go to the Secretary of State web page." So, I went to the Secretary of State web page. They said, "Click here." I clicked here. They said, "Click there. Click there." I go down four spots. It says municipality ballot petition. I clicked on that and within three minutes I had the right petition printed off on a computer and it took me three minutes to get the right one which is for me not knowing what I'm doing. I don't understand how that where they got the wrong petition at. Then I talked to a couple lawyers on it because I said where would the city stand if you know legally? and they sent me some uh codified laws. The first one says, "Requires that the I'll read these slow so you can hear it. Referendum petition to be filed on an official prescribed by the state board of of election under South Dakota codified law 2-1-3 which and the second one is codified law 920-2. Municipal petition must contain an ordinance or resolution in a proper form to the proper for properly signed. It wasn't a proper form. Um and third, there is a specific administration rule 5020816 that lays out the exact amount of language that must be used for a municipal referendum petition. Um,

and these guidelines weren't used. And they, the people I talked to said, I don't want to be in a lawsuit by passing something that's illegal. So, I'm going to be against these petitions because I got to look out for the city and myself on this because it was an illegal petition by three different codified laws by the state of South Dakota. So, I'll just show I'll make a motion to to deny the petitions because They're illegal by South Dakota law. Okay, we have a motion to deny. Does anyone want to follow up?

I'll second.

Okay, first and second to deny. Does anyone else on the council want to say anything before we open it up? I don't know how they it wasn't it was very easy to get the the proper petition on the web p on the South Dakota security or the web page that I mean so I don't know how they where they got their where they found theirs at but it wasn't with the secretary of state that's for sure. Well, well, I appreciate the intention that the people that circulated the petition and those who signed it, I appreciate their intention, but if it's an invalid petition, it's invalid. I mean, it's it's kind of our hands are tied. We accept something that's not proper. Not many probably remember this, but maybe Marty, maybe you do. And I don't know Susan if you were on the council at that point, but when um when Aries uh went from a gas station to a convenience store, there was a neighbor that passed a petition after we allowed either a variance or or uh a change of um I don't remember all the specifics and there's probably not many in the room that do, but I what I do remember is um a neighbor did pass a petition around and presented them to the city uh to uh to deny what our vote was and it was on the wrong form and at that point in time we said you know nothing we can do it's I'm sorry it's the wrong form and and that council at that time did deny that um as invalid. So there is some history with city council.

I um I just feel like this is really so unfortunate and um you know in my perfect world we would be able to just just accept it on good faith uh that these petitions were valid. But the problem is that when you have an opinion by the secretary of state, then we set the city up for a lawsuit re, you know, if we accept these, then we're setting the city up to be sued by those people who want to see that development done. So, um, either way, like, you know, whatever in in this situation, which is so unfortunate because I'm a person who's like, you know what, let's gosh, you know, we had this convers. But unfortunately, it is a big deal. And it we have to we've been elected to pro protect the um the city and to do what's right and to uphold the law. And sadly in this situation the wrong petition was passed and it is not valid or binding. So I'm going to have to vote against the the petitions as well. I'm so sorry. Hey Justin, I'm not going to ask you for your opinion obviously where you're sitting at, but is there any kind of a track record for what other levels? I know at the state level it seems like there's always going back to the attorney general to review the petition, all that kind of stuff. I mean, is it been pretty crucial at verbiage? I mean, I don't know if there I don't know if there is. Maybe I should have see chat DBT or AI would have had some answers. But [laughter] but as as Roger would say, but I just didn't know if there was any kind of things that we've heard in the past of

I I really don't have a precedent to point you towards um you know I I think that what Kevin has said um about the state statutes um is generally correct. Um, one of the administrative rules that he mentioned does require specifically uh that the form uh that signatures be collected on the the correct form and if they're not then those signatures are not to be counted. So that would be the basis uh for looking at it as invalid. All right. Thank you. Anyone else before we open it up to the audience?

Well, I can agree that I I'm I I do think we need to fact check what Councilman Mardle is saying. I do stand by what I said at previous meetings. We drastically changed the RFP. What we voted on in June second did not include that parking lot. I do think the right procedure here would be to do start the whole process over. let everybody have a fair shot at it and it goes to rest if they if you're gonna vote. I I'm getting a feeling that we're going to vote to deny the petition. And I just think that we need to start the process over and let the people speak and we can say, "Well, we gave everybody a shot. There's people that have reached out to Mayor Hansen and to me and probably you guys, too, that said, you know, I had no idea this was going on." So, that's where I'm at with it. If you're going to deny it, I do think we need to start the process over. I think I'll save my thoughts for later. Uh, so we'll open up to public comment, but I do want to say before we start, this is not about the the plan itself. It's not about should we leave it apart, should we do whatever plan. It's only if shall we put this on the ballot or not. So, so just to be clear, so if anyone would likes to come up to the podium, now is your time.

So, just asking Mike, it was separating the two. Yes. true true why we're here today on the petitions and obviously if we decide to circle back around is a whole different discussion. Yes, that's correct. Yep. I guess where I'm going to the I've had people reach out to me and say if you guys deny us we're taking it to court. So I just think to avoid all that just start over. Would anyone like to come to the podium? How much time do I have, Jordan? I think Mayor Hansen,

it's up to the council. It's up to the council. Will you grant me a few minutes to be Tim's got to be at work? Oh, yeah. There's quite a few other class starts at 9. So, [laughter] I would [snorts] appreciate I would appre keep it as brief as you can if you

I'll keep it as brief as I can. I just talked to that. Now I would like to speak and I know it all globally comes back to housing in Mitchell. Um I do want to offer some points of consideration uh pertaining to the housing um in Mitchell that I that I feel aren't just being discussed publicly. Um, and I do want to be very clear, the points that I'm talking to are only directed at housing and policy and not necessarily land or this specific topic. I hate to cut you off, but like I like I said, can you try to stick to should we keep this on the ballot or not with the legality of the petition?

Well, and I'm going to lay out some points that we should consider to leave this on leave the petition in place. Just round it back to that. Thank you.

Okay. appreciate that. Um, just to set the stage a little bit, the world is a builder. We revolve around a strategy. Uh, we always say one one, two, three, uh, progression in housing. Step one is maybe that first house that you are going to buy. Maybe you were renting, you want to get into your first home. You are looking at those entry- level houses in Mitchell. Step two is probably a progression from there where you've been in your existing home for a while. Maybe you're looking at building something new, upgrading, buying something that's 10 to 12 years old, whatever it may be. The this is setting the stage for the progression of home ownership in any of community. Step three would be that final home where maybe you're retiring, you're looking at getting into something that's more accessible, whatever it is. So, in my little bubble, there is three stages of housing. In order to move through those stages, you have to have a buyer. The guy in step one that wants to move into a different home or maybe wants a company like mine or my peers to build them, a home, they are going to have to sell their first home. Same thing for two to three. But what if that buyer wasn't there for step one? What if you bought a house in Mitchell and three, four, five, 10 years ago and you bought a house and you did some remodeling and you had all this work done and when it comes time to sell your house and you you're looking over all the receipts and you go over there and we've got to have 300,000 for our house. Now, what if you throw a fork in the road and there is options for brand new homes that are subsidized? Whether it's financing, specifics, land,

whatever it may be, subsidized housing. [laughter] What if you throw a fork in the road and now there are brand new homes on the market that were subsidized in that $250 to $280,000 range? you're a renter and say that you want to move up in the in the world and you want to buy that house. Are you going to look at that guy that's in step one with that 60-year-old house that's been remodeled and had all this work done, but yet it's still an old home, or are you going to buy that new home? You're probably going to buy that brand new house. Mr. Jensen, sorry to cut you off. Can you can you get back to the petition just to make just the validity of the petition?

And for the people online, I've had a couple texts. This is Jeremy Jensen. Make sure he's ready. Sorry, I forgot about [snorts] two minutes so far. So, if you could wrap it up petition, not to try to cut you off. I'm just No, I know everybody's busy, [clears throat] but these are things that need to be talked about and this is the place to do it. So, what happens is just to be clear, yeah, uh this has to be in reference to the actual overturning of the petition itself, right? I agree with you that these are things that should be talked about publicly, but this is specific to the action on the table and that's what the has to say too. So, we just need and I will add mayor, let's put this on the agenda so we do have an opportunity to regardless of what happens today. That's a good idea. Okay.

Thank you. So, we'll give you another opportunity. I know you're here for talk about housing, but again, not to I get it. I guess if I would make a recommendation, I would put it on the ballot. Whether that whether that document was outdated or not, those people in the community still signed it. So, I think the voice needs to be heard and if we can get something on the agenda again so my peers and I have a voice with policy decisions, I would appreciate that in the future. So let's add that to the discussion of this to the next.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. [clears throat] Please announce your name.

Boyd rhymed. Um how we got to this particular situation. Um I entered Michelle's office a couple of weeks ago and started asking her questions. This is the first time I've ever taken out a petition um from the city to this. And so was asking her a bunch of questions and during the course of those conversations she gave me a number of different pieces of paper. One of those pieces of paper was a prior petition and uh um I was overwhelmed with what there was. Did not go to the state website like you did. Um and I went to a lawyer and I took this to an attorney gave him those particular documents and uh it was from the documents that I got from Michelle was what they drew up the petition on. And so that's how we got to this particular place. Um, and here we are. Um, thank you.

Thank you, Dwight Stadler, Ward 4. [clears throat] I do have a question. What materially changed when the format changed the new form? Did any of the content or signature block information did any of that change? Was there any content in any way? Because old form, new form becomes irrelevant if the content has not materially changed. So you can maybe rearrange where things are on the form, but that doesn't negate the content and all the data that's in that form. You've had over 600 citizens support this. By the way, if you haven't figured it out already, I'm in favor of it going on to the June 2nd ballot. Um I think you're ignoring the citizens of Mitchell if you decide not to put it on a ballot. [snorts] Um I I think it's critical for you to consider your constituency and not get locked down in some minute details. and and and I did hear you and I understand what you're saying about the form and how the state recognize how you recognize what you think should be, but you also have to look at the content. You have to look at the global picture. You just can't throw it out because oh gee, well, we rearranged the data on the form, but it's still the same stuff. Nothing changed. Did it? Anybody know if any data changed on that form?

I think our attorney has the answer. I'm not sure if he's allowed to say it though, but yeah, I can speak to the the change. It really was just a terminology change. Um there were several references in the prior version of the form that talked about residence address. Those got updated to say voter registration address, which you know, Dwight can probably tell you that in a lot of cases that's going to be the same thing. Uh the point is there there's a requirement under the law that it use the correct form and it did not use the correct form. So that answer

so if you decide that it's not going to go on the June the 2nd ballot. I have an offer. Give me a second here. He's pulling on.

You're going to think I'm insane. There's $1,01. I'll buy the property for $1,0001 instead of you paying on only getting $1 for it. That's a thousand more. Do the math. That's thousand more than that $1. That's my proposal if you decide it's not going to go on the ballot. But I encourage you to put it on the June the second ballot. My key critical components of such an agreement are I get to do with the property what I want and it'll be reszoned the way I however I want it zoned. Those are two critical components in there. You can laugh me out of the room, but either way, I I think that should go on the June 2nd ballot because I think nitpicking the form and I hear you state law, but at some point in time, somebody's got to get some common sense. Thank you for listening. Thank you.

Would anyone else like to address the council? Can I provide a clarification? [clears throat] Yes, please. So, the document that the finance office provided was a copy of a sample ballot, not a petition. And staff's response always is that we cannot provide legal advice. Thank you,

Steve Simpson. Um, first I'd like to point out that the United States Constitution gives us the right to petition our government. South Dakota statute 9-20-10 states [snorts] liberal construction of referendum petition such petition may be made up and signed and shall be liberally construed as provided by the statute governing an initiated law. So I my argument is this should be put on the ballot because we have a constitutional right to petition this body for decisions we disagree with as a citizen. Thank you. Thank you.

Would anyone else in the audience like to discuss this? I'm kind of curious. Is the wrong form still online? It's not on the Secretary of State's website.

Okay. Anyone else in the audience before we close it and go back to council? Dwight Stadler again. When was the form changed? What's the date of the change? It was updated December of 2025 after uh December of 2025. Yep. House House Bill last legislative session. [clears throat] Okay. I mean, they're less than three months into that. So, it makes sense that somebody could easily use the wrong form, wouldn't it? Okay. Anyone else in the audience?

Okay. So, we have a motion to deny on the table. I think Oh, yeah. And a second. [clears throat] Let's do a roll call. Just to be clear, it is to not put the petition on the ballot. Is that correct? Yep. That's my understanding of the motion. Just want to make sure everyone's clear before we vote. Doerify. So an an I vote would be to declare the petition invalid and not place it on the ballot. Okay. Nay. So you do want to put it on the ballot. Put it on the ballot. Okay. Murdle.

Hi. Bington. Hi. Bathsky. Nay CHS. Hi Smith. Hi Sabers. Hi Goldhammer. Nay. I got five to three. Yep. Five to three. So it will not go on the ballot. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. With apologies. I mean I I think it's really unfortunate that the wrong form was used. I just feel like I'm so sorry that that happened. yourself. Well, and and everybody keep in mind we're putting this on um is the next meeting, mayor? We will put on the next meeting and re redis

and we can make some more decisions at that point or discussion and and maybe some more direction going forward. But I I I commend the mayor for helping us get to this point of taking care of an absolute isore, the probably the biggest isore we have in Mitchell. Let's turn this into a positive to a bigger positive. That's what we need to get done. Okay. Thank you. All right. Last thing, public comment. If you need to address the mayor and city councils on an item that was not on the agenda, excluding personal 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?

I can't tell if anyone's coming this direction. Okay, sounds good. We will adjourn. Thank you.