City Council - Regular Meeting

Let's call this meeting to 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.

Please remain seated while we have invocations. Zion Lutheran UCC Church, come up.

Well, actually, I'm not from Zion Lutheran, but I'm Keith Nelson from the United Methodist Church. Pastor Grimmer couldn't be here tonight, and I said I would take this. So you have to settle for a United Methodist prayer tonight, okay? So would you pray with me? God of all creation, we pause at the beginning of this meeting to recognize your spirit's presence in this place. We ask that wisdom and discernment would be poured out upon these individuals at these tables as we wrestle with making the best decisions possible for the community. Lord, we give you thanks for this community and the many blessings that we possess. May we all do our part to make this community, this state, this nation, and our world the best place for all to live. May we all remember that on this journey we call life, that you walk with us, caring for us, guiding us, and nudging us to serve one another as we also serve you. And I pray this all in Jesus' powerful name. Amen.

Thank you. Roll call.

Barrington. Here. Schlimgen. Here. Greenwhite. Here. Smith.

Here.

Savers. Here. Goldhammer. Here. Davis. Here. McArdle.

Here. Okay, we have a quorum. Why don't we have the Special Olympic athletes come up here, and we'll do a little recognition. You guys, welcome to the front, please. Okay.

Stand right here.

At the end of this, we're going to smile and look at the camera, okay? All right. This is a proclamation recognizing the Mitchell athletes competing in the 2026 Special Olympics USA Games. Whereas the Special Olympics USA Games brought together approximately 3,000 athletes, 1,500 coaches from all 50 states, including 65 athletes from South Dakota, compete in 16 teams in individual sports, supported by thousands of volunteers and fans. The City of Mitchell proudly recognizes the achievements and sportsmanship of athletes who represent our community with pride. Mitchell athletes Michael Kohu, Scottie Goldhammer, Brandon Wolfe, and Riley Wolfe earned honor of representing South Dakota in the 2026 Special Olympics USA Games held June 20th to 26th in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Scotty Goldhammer, Brandon Wolfe, and Riley Wolfe completed as members of South Dakota's slow-pitch softball team, demonstrating teamwork and pride on a national stage. Mike Pohun competed in a swimming event, including freestyle backstroke in a four-person medley relay, representing Mitchell with determination and courage. These athletes have shown that competition is more than medals. It's about friendship, inclusion, courage, community pride, and inspiring others. The City of Mitchell joins their families, coaches, teammates, LifeQuest fans, schools, and the entire community in celebrating their accomplishments and the example that they have set for others. Now, therefore, I, Jordan Hanson, Mayor of the City of Mitchell, South Dakota, do hereby recognize and honor Michael Kogulu, Scotty Goldhammer, Brandon Wolfe, and Riley Wolfe for representing Mitchell and the State of South Dakota in the 2026 Special Olympic USA Games and we congratulate you all on this achievement.

Oh, thank you. Cool. Appreciate that. Here you go. Thank you. Thank you, guys. Congratulations. No problem. What a great start.

Thank you. Appreciate it. We'll let this settle down just a little bit. All right. Approval of a consent agenda items. Items appearing on the consent agenda may be removed by a city council member for the discussion at the beginning of formal agenda items. Would anyone like to address anything or remove anything? Move to approve. Okay, we got a motion to approve. Second. We got a second. And why don't you do your presentation?

Perfect. Well, that's okay. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Johanna. I'm with the Chamber of Commerce and Development Corporation. And we are here to present our quarter two report and show you guys what we have been up to for the second quarter of 2020. Perfect. That's okay.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is Johanna. I'm with the Chamber of Commerce and Development Corporation. And I'm here to present what the Dakota Heartland Development Association have been doing for the second quarter of 2026.

As well as hosted 12 ribbon cuttings.

The Ag Business Committee hosted the Ag Connections Tour featuring Farm to Table with Oak Lane Colony on June 23rd, where we had 48 attendees, which was our largest Ag Connections Tour yet. Looking at Government Affairs, we held our last two Leadership Mitchell sessions and had graduation on May 28th, as well as a ribbon cutting for their class project, which was wrapping the traffic box at 5th and Main on June 11th. The Government Affairs Committee also held a candidate and issue forum on May 19th at the DWU Sherman Center, where we focused on the ballot measure, school board, and city council. Moving on to Connect Mitchell, the Connect Mitchell Committee held three first Friday coffees, one at the Highland Conference Center, one at Michelle's Matt Bader, and one at Short Staffed. We also hosted two Lunch and Learns, one with Lost and Found, and one with Tim Johnson AI Consulting. We had three mix and mingles this quarter, one with Big Friend Little Friend, one with Puerto Vallarta, and one with the Mitchell Area Community Theatre. We also hosted a groundbreaking this quarter for the new Chef Louise. Our Chamber Golf Classic was held on Friday, June 19th. We had 40 teams and 120 golfers, which is our largest golf tournament yet. And now the Mitchell Convention and Visitors Bureau. We have 100 bus tours scheduled for 2026 and counting. We also welcomed a bus tour to the Dakota Wesleyan University Dinner Theater where they received free dinner and a show from winning a drawing. Looking at 2025 data, Davidson County had $122 million in visitor spending in 2025, which is up 3% from 2024. This data includes anyone coming from 50 miles and out, which includes our regional shoppers, visitors, and tourists. Looking at the entertainment tax, through May, the 2026 entertainment tax is up 1.89%, and the hotel occupancy is down 10% through April. Moving on to tourism events, the 2026 International Roundup was held April 28th through May 1st in Medora, North Dakota, where Keeley and Doreen attended. We also hosted a post-VAM tour with international tour guides that came to visit Mitchell. National Travel and Tourism Week was May 3rd through May 9th. We did social media posts and giveaways in honor of this week. Forever 605 Day was also on June 5th and we did a social media post in honor of this day. The 2026 Literacy Conference was in Mitchell June 16th and 17th where 900 teachers were in town. We hosted a public event on the evening of June 16th to welcome the teachers and also hosted a South Dakota 250 flag raising. Palace City Pre-Sturgis Marketing is continuing to go. We received a grant through Travel South Dakota while we do print, digital, TV, radio, and social media marketing efforts. Ambridge and Travel South Dakota Peak Co-op also do local digital marketing. And 605 Magazine advertisements for May and June featured Mitchell events. And now the Mitchell Area Development Corporation. The Young Professionals Group hosted Disney Trivia in April, a Freezer Meal Workshop and Star Wars Trivia in May, and a Tabletop Game Night in June. The MADC Board of Directors approved $20,000 to fund 40 $500 internship assistance grants for college students completing internships in Mitchell. We had 59 students apply from 11 different colleges and placed 20-plus at businesses. The Community Concierge continues to host newcomer events. In April, they did Digging and Discover at the Mitchell Archaeological Site. In May, they did From Farm to Flower Pot at Lee's Red Barn. And in June, they did a bike tour at Ron's Bike Shop. The Move to Mitchell $100 Incentive and Palace Perk Book Coupon Book are continuing to be given out to newcomers to the Mitchell area. In April, the Mitchell Development Corporation completed the transfer of the East First Housing Development property to Van Buskirk Homes. MADC also transferred the ownership of the Ridgeview on Foster Development to Mahe Mitchell Area Housing. Mitchell Tech College sold the first student-built home in the Ridgeview on Foster Development. Through the Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines Down Payment Assistance Program, the MADC assisted five income-qualified families during the second quarter with a total of $85,000 in down payment assistance. The MADC also completed several housing rehab projects through the South Dakota Housing Development Authority Home and HOF Programs. Mitchell Area Housing Inc. President Terry Sabers was recognized with the Friend of Housing Award at the South Dakota Housing Development Authority Housing Conference. The MADC and the Mitchell Chamber of Commerce continued their entrepreneur competition, resulting in two new chamber courtyard businesses opening, Natasha Lynn Design and Sodak Barbecue. The MADC also approved $2,500 interest-free startup loans for participating student entrepreneurs. The MADC and the Mitchell Chamber also began marketing the former Cornerstone II building with discounted lease incentives to recruit another entrepreneur to downtown Mitchell. We welcome to new business 828 Christian Book and Gift Store. MADC is also assisting Davidson Rural Water and Davidson County with a public land transfer that will allow construction of a new water tower near the Davidson County 4H grounds. In May, MADC began the transfer of approximately 1.2 acres to Runnings through a partnership with First Dakota National Bank to support Runnings retail operations. And lastly, the Dakota Heartland Development Association. White Lake celebrates the opening of two new businesses during its Business Challenge event on July 11th. Both feature homemade menu items and locally sourced produce and meats. Graham Tire recently acquired the Ag Tire business in the Corsica trade area. Corsica Senior Healthcare Task Force and Douglas County Memorial Hospital are developing a plan to preserve senior healthcare services. In Tripp and White Lake, a 1,437 square foot, three bed, two bath Eisman home with a two car garage and full basement has recently been listed for sale by the Tripp Development Corporation. White Lake is also preparing a three bedroom, two bathroom governor's home for sale on a lot given by the local school district. In the region, we're utilizing a Northwestern Energy's Advantage South Dakota grant program to fund a local certified nursing assistance training program for eight recipients. This is the local effort to provide needed workforce to area healthcare facilities. That is the quarter two report for 2026 for the Mitchell Chamber Development Corporation. and Dakota Heartland. Thank you for watching.

I will state that I was told I spoke too fast, so that one was a little bit longer.

I tried to slow down a little bit in that one, so hopefully it wasn't too long. But if you guys have any questions about the quarter two report for our organization, I'd be happy to answer those.

Does anyone have any questions?

All right. Thank you guys so much.

Okay, thank you. Anything else on the consent agenda? Anyone in the audience like to discuss anything on the consent agenda? Okay, roll call.

Stavers. Aye. Goldhammer. Aye. Davis. Aye. McArdle. Aye. Barrington. Aye. Schlungen.

Aye.

Greenway. Aye. Smith.

Aye. Motion carries. Public comment. If you need to address the mayor and members of city council on an item that is 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?

Hi, I'm Elizabeth with Mitchell Main Street and Beyond, and I just wanted to remind everyone that Main Street is going to get their flowers repotted this week. Thank you to Runnings and Mitchell for making that possible. So we'll have red, white, and blue flowers back out there. The heat wave just knocked them out a little bit. So thank you to those and those helping volunteer time to make that possible. With that being said, we have Christmas in July this weekend up and down Main Street. A lot of events happening in our community. There's always something to do. Palace City Preserges is on August 6th. followed by Rev It Up Downtown. We invite business owners across Main Street and beyond to have motorcycle deals and all kinds of fun things. If you want to learn more, there's more at MitchellMainStreet.com or follow us on social media. We have about 58 events left for the rest of 2026. We will be announcing the theme here in the next week. That will be on December 1st at 7 p.m. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in the audience like to address the council? Okay, hearing none, we're going to... I've got one quick thing.

I've got an invitation here to the James Valley DUI Court Program Graduation Ceremony, which is Thursday, the 23rd of July at 2.30 at the Public Safety Building. Everybody's invited and reception to follow, they say. So I just wanted to let people know.

Usually have cake. Go ahead. Mayor, I was just going to mention that with our road construction going out on Ward 4, it forces you to go through the lake, which is just amazing, the activity that's happening out there. But one thing I did see today is Barr has had a boat out there, Joe. I don't know if you can tell us if they're doing some mapping or what exactly they're working on.

So right now, currently, they are working on the shoreline assessment. So they're cataloging what the shore looks like, structures, shoreline, those types of things. So if there's any issues during the drawdown of the lake project, we can look at that information and see what's going on.

Okay, anything else? All right, Board of Adjustment, entertain a motion for the City Council to recess and sit as the Board of Adjustment. Motion by Mr. Barrington.

Second.

Second by Mr. Goldhammer. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Hearing an action on application for Brandon Wegahop Variance Permit. Brandon Wegahop has applied for a variance permit for a front yard setback of 4 feet versus 35 feet to convert an existing garage into an entry mudroom and build a new attached garage. This is located at 1509 Westview Drive, legally described as shown on the agenda, Mr. Jennings.

Mr. Mayor and Council, Planning Commission motion to approve. It was unanimously approved. Notices were sent out to neighbors, published in the paper, signs posted. There was one letter returned in favor of this. Applicant would like to build a garage to the west, excuse me, to the east of his existing garage and turn the existing garage into a mudroom and entryway. Access to the garage would be from the south side of it instead of from the east side. So they'd have to change the approach a little bit around there. On his application, he states for his hardship that the land of the north is really slanted. You'd have to bring in a lot of fill into that area. And he also has some utilities that are in that area. So if you were to build to the north, you'd have to be building over where his utilities are coming into his house. I can answer any questions that you have. Thank you.

I'll second that, Mr. Sabers, for the 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 set the date for abortive adjustment here in 8-3-26 for the following three.

Move to set the date.

Motion by Mr. Goldhammer. Second by Mr. Smith. 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. Reconvene as City Council. Entertain a motion for the Board of Adjustment to adjourn and the City Council to reconvene in regular session.

So moved.

Second by Mr. Goldhammer. Second by Mr. Barrington. Further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Hearing an action on following alcohol licenses on application for the Exchange Club of Mitchell for a special event malt beverage and South Dakota farm wine license located at Cadwell Park for August 5th through August 16th, 2026 for the State Amateur Baseball Tournament. Chief Knipley.

Mayor of city council pd has no concerns with this recommends approval, thank you.

Mr goldhammer back in my Mr. I'm sorry, so I'm not used to it yet we're still still figuring it out all right further discussion. You know the audience like to discuss this. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. On the application to transfer RL30753 retail on sale liquor license from JTZ Properties LLC doing business as Legacy Shores 3352 Canal Circle to Blarney's LLC doing business as Rookie's Casino 2100 Highland Suite Q video lottery is included. Chief Knifflin.

Mr. Mayor, City Council, staff has reviewed this and has no concerns as well. Recommend approval.

Move to approve.

from Mr. Goldhammer, seconded 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. Action to award bid for airport runway 18-36 reconstruction and taxiway improvements AIP number 3-46-0037-035-2026 project, Mr. Schrader.

Mr. Mayor, Council, five bids were opened on June 17th in City Hall at 1.30. Those five bids are listed below in the staff report. The explanation of the bids, the base bid was the runway 1836 reconstruction and taxiway improvements. Alternate number one was a turnaround at runway 18. Alternate two was a turnaround at runway 36. Alternate bid three was a lighting and electrical alternate for solar powered beacon versus hardwired. The low bid was by Feisner Gravel and Excavation. Their base bid was $6,497,027.46. The recommended bid award is the base bid. Alternate bid one. Alternate bid one was $468,479.71. And alternate bid two for $341,921.92 for a total bid award of $7,000,000. $307,429.08. Brooke Edgar, who is a professional engineer with Helms & Associates, has reviewed the bid and found it to be complete and reasonable. She is recommending awarding the bid to Feisner Gravel and Excavation. Staff recommends tentative award for the project number listed. Runway 1836 reconstruction and taxiway improvements, base bid, alternate bid one, and alternate bid two to Feisner Gravel and Excavation of Woonsocket, South Dakota for the recommended bid amount of $7,307,429.08 contingent upon receipt of an FAA grant offer. And I can answer any questions you have.

Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Trader?

How much was the grant offer for, Joe?

So that is the next item. So the state federal share is 95%, which is $7,746,300. State share is 2.5%. Our local share is 2.5%, and that's listed around $203,850. Last year, we estimated the total amount being around $300,000 that we would need to spend So this project did come in under budget, and without the FAA grants, this would not be possible.

Mr. McArdle, seconded by Mr. Goldhammer. 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 grant application for airport runway program for runway 18-36 AIP project 3-46-003735-2026. Mr. Schrader.

Mr. Mayor, Council, this grant is for the previous bid award. I walked through those grant dollars a little bit ago. The total request is $8,154,000 with, again, the federal share being 95% and the state and local share covering 2.5% each. There is a a map attached showing the improvements. Staff recommends council approval and a grant authorization for the mayor to sign the grant application and for the mayor to sign for any further documents related to the grant acceptance if awarded. I can answer any questions you have.

Thank you. Move to approve. Motion by Mr. Goldhammer. Second. Second by Mr. Slimkin. Further discussion? Anyone in the audience like to discuss these? All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Action approved. Quote for Burr Water Tower Demo Project 2026-46. Mr. Schroeder.

Mr. Mayor, Council, this is a 2026 budgeted project. Three quotes were requested with the low bid being from Hozier Worldwide Inc. out of Deer River, Minnesota for $97,600. The project will include the removal and disposal of all steel and City staff has coordinated asbestos and lead testing with the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The removal of the concrete footings will be completed by the City. Future water main work will be needed to address piping within the Burr Water Tower area, which we will handle at a future date. Staff recommends awarding the project to Hosier Worldwide for the amount of $97,600, and I can answer any questions you have.

Joe, was the $500,000 including something else for the budget, or did it come in that whole?

So it came in. lower than what we thought. But some of those dollars will also be used for the water main work that needs to be completed. So bring the tower down. There's a 24 inch line that we're going to decommission. And there's also, we need to clean up the piping at 7th and Berg. The piping in that area is kind of a monster because of where the water tower is now, since it's no longer in operation. We'll clean that up and get that all fixed up.

And then do we use the other buildings for the east of there?

So the east, the building east of there is our current traffic shop.

Okay. Okay. Anyone else have any questions? Okay, I'll entertain a motion then.

Move to approve.

Motion by Mr. Goldham. Second by Mr. Sabers. 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 Agreement A, 2026-47, Municipal Financial Advisor Agreement for Independent Fiscal Feasibility Review. Ms. Elwin.

Mayor and Council included in the packet is a proposal from Colliers. The South Dakota state law changed in July of 2026 and it now requires the city to submit TIF proposals to an independent fiscal feasibility review. The City of Mitchell did ask for proposals so that we could have those agreements in place before we receive our next TIF application. This enclosed agreement, if approved, would allow the City of Mitchell to submit the TIF proposals to Colliers who meets the category of Municipal Advisor for the Independent Fiscal Feasibility Review. Once the agreement is in place, the city would be authorized to use these services. The cost for the review is paid for by the developer and is eligible to be reimbursed to the developer by TIF proceeds. The city would like to have these agreements ready so that with multiple agencies, just in case there is a conflict between a TIF application and the review agency that we're using. And I recommend approval of the agreement, the standard form agreement.

Thank you. Mr. McCartney. Second, 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. Act to approve TIF fiscal feasibility review proposal with Dakota Institute. Ms. Owen.

Mayor and Council, similar to the last one that you just approved, but this TIF fiscal feasibility review proposal is with Dakota Institute. I do need to point something out. We have an updated proposal from when the packets went out. I have added that online for anybody who wants to look at that. The revised proposal would have a fee of $12,400 and it brings the timeline down to two to four weeks instead of four to six weeks. Same comments as before, it would just allow us to move forward with this service if a TIF application is received. Our preference would probably be to use colliers because it's a shorter term turnaround time and the cost is less to the developer. But if there's a conflict with colliers, we have a backup in place for that purpose. And I can answer any questions you have. Otherwise, I recommend approval of the agreement.

Thank you. Motion to approve. Motion by Mr. Sumgin. Second. Second by Mr. Barrington. 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. All right, the next one. Public hearing on construction of alleys as follows. I'm gonna start with this before I flip it over to Joe, who has all of the information. In the first year of my mayorship, we found out that there's a healthy chunk of money sitting in the alley reconstruction. And the alleys were one of the top three things that people asked me for. So we've kind of been kicking this idea around, or what should we do with that money? Do we maintain it? Do we pay for all the alleys? Do we let someone else pay for everything? Do we cost share? We didn't really know the answer to that question. And I know that when we bring stuff to council, we wanna have as much information as we can possibly gather to help the city council make a decision. I will admit I probably gathered a little too much information on this project. So, and maybe just had a few things that we should have thought of ahead of time. However, we're going to give everyone the information from the audience, from the council, and... Everything's going to go smoothly and everyone's going to be happy, hopefully. So we're going to flip this over to Joe. He's got all the information on everything that's going on. And then we're going to go to the council and then everyone in the audience who wants to talk about these alleys will have an opportunity to talk about those. And then we're going to do each one individually because some people are really in favor of that portion and some people are not.

So go ahead, Mr. Merritt. One other, maybe further explanation of what was the comments you were receiving and what was we trying to accomplish and what's the issues that we're seeing out there right now? And either one of you obviously can. What were we trying to accomplish, I guess, is what I'm trying to say.

Well, there's a few different deals. Some of them are super maintenance heavy. Some of them are super traffic heavy. So some, you get a lot of complaints, whether it's from the owners adjacent or people that just use them a lot. You know what I mean? Like, for instance, the area, or not the area community, but the path, right? So if people want to escape quickly or get out of there quickly, someone do something with this alley. So that might've come from that. Some of those people might've lived in that area and said, hey, there's a bunch of potholes. Can you fix them? Some of them are, hey, it's an asphalt alley. Can we go to a new asphalt or cement alley? Probably should have done these one at a time. However, we didn't. So Joe can probably answer all the minutia. We went out today and looked at everything, took pictures, so you guys can see everything from every aspect and then have all the information to make a decision.

So to answer another portion of your question, Jeff, the eight alleys that are listed were requested to be paved by... one or multiple homeowners adjacent to the property. That's how this initial list was put together. Other information, that fund that Mayor Hansen talked about currently has $326,000 in it with another $70,000 proposed to be added. next year and how that fee works is it's two dollars per ton that's uh delivered to the landfill two dollars is segregated out of that amount and put into this fund so we typically see uh 35 000 tons per year coming into our landfill currently um so yeah with that i think we will go ahead and i will turn it over to joelle damon an engineer in our public works office to start the hearing process

All right. Good evening, Mayor and members of the Council. At this time, we're holding a public hearing on the proposed resolution of necessity for special assessments on the proposed concrete alley projects. The locations of the projects are provided to you on the map and are as described. It includes the 300 block of East 1st Avenue, north of East 1st, 900 block of East 2nd Avenue, north of East 2nd, 300 block of North Main Street, east of North Main, 600 block of East 4th Avenue, north of East 4th, 700 block of East 4th Avenue, north of East 4th, 500 block of East 7th Avenue, north of East 7th, 400 block of East 7th Avenue, north of East 7th, and the 700 block of North Rowley Street, east of North Rowley. This project includes 6-inch concrete alley servicing, removal of existing gravel or asphalt, sub-base work, fabric, engineering fees, and interest. Some of the alleys also include sidewalk at the ends, new approaches, and curb and gutter, or tie-ins to existing concrete or asphalt driveways. Notices were sent out to all the property owners affected by this project. We've been contacted by some of the property owners and have worked to address their concerns or pass on their opinions. If approved, we would bid the proposed concrete alley project in 2027 and then begin construction that summer. After the project is completed in 2027, in the fall of 2028, the assessment would include their final amounts. If the property owner lets the assessment go on to their taxes, it would be a 10-year repayment plan with 8% interest. The first assessment payment would be on the first half of the property taxes in 2020, payable in 2029. At this time, we will open the hearing to questions for the first alley, which is the 300 block of East 1st Avenue.

Okay, so real quick before we have the audience come up or you guys want to talk, I do want to say we do have five options of what we can do with the alleys. One, we could assess them 100%. If That's what they choose or you guys choose. Number two is we could pay for half or part of it if it makes sense to the city as a whole city function. If it's a very common alley that benefits the majority of people, not just the single alley, if that makes sense. Number three is we could pay for everything for every alley in the city of Mitchell. But that would take if we did one a year based on what we collected for alley fees around 275 years, which is not going to make sense probably because the alleys will be done by them. Um, the other one, we could just do nothing or we could do nothing and just keep maintaining what we have. Or if we have a little bit extra alley fund, we could just ramp up alley maintenance, blade them more, add more dirt or gravel, excuse me, shape them, redo everything. So that's one thing to take into consideration. Those are our options. Now, Joe and I have had probably months or years of discussion on, should we go with alley or should we go with cement or asphalt? And just so everyone knows, cement should be sloped like this so that the water can go that way. If you do that with asphalt, it tends to break up because asphalt holds water and moisture, and that's why some of our alleys are destroyed with asphalt now. I tried to convince Joe that we should just do valley gutters and then asphalt on the outside, like valley gutters of cement. That would be much more complicated. We don't have the machinery for it. So I just want to give everyone a big history of the things that we've been discussing.

So, Mr. Mayor, over the years of sitting here, there's been some alleys that have been done that have been, obviously, just like we mentioned here, petitioned by the property landowners. Of these, is there any of them that we do know? And I believe my understanding is if there's more than 50.1% of adjoining landowners, if they have those votes in place, it's not up to us anymore. It's the fact that there's 50.1% of the landowners want to do, and then everybody's automatically involved. I think that's a safe assumption. That would be a Justin question. Mr. Johnson? If the majority of the adjacent landowners say there's 20 people on a block and 11 of them are saying yes to the project, is it still something that the council can ratify or override, I guess? Or is it because 50.1 is there, it's...

No, council does have the ability to override those objections. If it comes to that point, it would take a two-thirds majority of council to do that, but they do have the ability to do that. Okay.

And is there of these any alleys, do we know that we do have a majority of the landowners already? Have we polled any of the alleys?

We did poll last year. There was one alley where we received a four yes, two no, and three no reply.

Is a no reply an automatic no?

No, it was just a no reply. I believe that was one of the only ones we received over 50% of response. But since then, I feel... There's been a lot of different feelings towards the project. When we sent out the letters, we've heard there's some that have support and we've heard there's some that have no support.

I'd like to hear from the people who have support because I haven't heard one person that's in favor of them. And I don't think we should go individually. I don't know anybody that wants them. I don't know anybody in the council that wants them. I think we should just say no and maintain the alleys the way we've been doing it in the past because these people that got these letters were shocked, about as shocked as I was when I got phone calls about it because I didn't know anything about it, what they were talking about. But I can't see. And I don't know if there's any audience out there that's in favor of them. I don't think there's very many. How many are against it? Yeah, that's what I mean. There's like two people for it and about 100 of them out there against it. Instead of going down the line on each one of these, I think we should just make a vote as a council. I think everybody's going to deny it.

Well, a portion of that is where I was driving at is if we had some that were of the debate that they were 50-50, I think it needs to be discussed. But if we know there's some that 80% of them are no, the one petitioner that wanted his alley paved, I guess he shouldn't talk to the neighbors is what I'm getting at. So I was trying to clean things up a little quicker too instead of having to go through each individual alley, but I don't know if that's possible unless there's one that we need to discuss. So...

I haven't heard of anybody in Fairburnville, and I've heard from a lot of people. I don't know if any of the rest of you guys have heard of anybody that wants one.

Mayor Hanson, Joe, I don't know if I can ask this question, but have the utilities been contacted about this project? Because I would guess that there's a number of underground buried facilities, communications, electrical in a lot of these alleys, and we'd be putting six inches of concrete there. over the top of that, which would limit access and limit future underground facilities from being installed. Have we gotten any input from those particular?

At this time, no. We've gone through preliminary design. And how we've done these in the past is once we put final plans together, we'll send them out to the utilities to see what needs to be done, what needs to be adjusted. With this project, if it is approved, this project would happen next year. That would give us ample time to contact those utilities in order to coordinate what work would need to be done in order for the alley to be paved.

Joel, give us some examples of Mayor Hanson's number five of taking the money we currently have and doing some maintenance on maybe some of the worst of the worst and then working back from there. But have you kind of thought about that a little bit? What we would actually be doing with the money?

So right now, our current process is we try to get in the alleys twice a year, once in the spring, once in the fall. Correct. And then we'll go through and we'll address them. And then we address them on a complaint-driven basis throughout the year. Usually varies upon how much rain we get, that type of stuff. The dollars originally, I think, were set up to, you know, help with gravel cost, help with some additional maintenance costs. So there definitely are some areas that require more maintenance than others. And in the end, it more so just comes down to manpower and being able to get into those alleys. If the city was to take a stance of if we were going to pick an alley or two per year, yeah, we would start with the worst maintenance alleys and get those taken care of so our crews are able to work elsewhere in the city.

So if we put gravel on it, is there any places where it'll dam up water or drainage? Let's say you put two inches of gravel in most alleys.

Alleys are difficult. Alleys do get built up over time. You get vegetation, you get gravel washouts. We do have issues where utilities are extremely shallow, just a couple inches underneath the gravel. So we don't necessarily like to rip them up. It's very labor intensive to work around those utilities. So alleys are just very difficult. They're small to work in. You know, we have large equipment. Sometimes it's difficult to get our equipment in those alleys. We just approved the ordinance that allowed us to go in and trim vegetation that's overgrown within the alleys that would rub on our equipment. There are existing alleys in town that are asphalt that are extremely difficult to maintain because of width restrictions, size restrictions for our equipment. Is it possible? Yeah, but it's very labor intensive. You know, we spend a majority of our summer getting ready for our main street, our main road chip seals as it's cracked ceiling and chip sealing and fog sealing and then doing the other work that we have slotted for the year.

Joe, is there any current alleys On the discussion list tonight that are currently.

Concrete I'm assuming the ones off main streets might be so there's 3 alleys that had asphalt or previously had asphalt. The alleys on either side of main street are currently. Asphalt or poor condition asphalt. And then the one that's located on the east side of the high school or adjacent to the Muth building, that one, I believe, was once either a blotter coated or an asphalt, a thin asphalt.

Yeah, so that was the question we were having. Because normally if someone pays for asphalt, we maintain it for life. But now that it's asphalt and the city's new standard is no longer asphalt, it's concrete. Is it fair to charge them twice to go to cement, or is that something we just pay for 100%? Or do we re-asphalt it, which doesn't meet the current standards? Which is a question for how you guys would like to proceed.

And I do know on Main Street alleys, and we haven't done this since I've been here, but alleys adjacent to Main Street, the way I understand, have been assessed 100% in the past. We went through the list, and the ones that I can find are 2009, 2011 alleys. 1997, 2012, 2011. I think there was one done as recent as 2018 or 2019. That was from, I believe, second to third on the west side of Main Street.

I have no problem doing with what you said. If you want to just scrap the whole thing, that's fine. But I really wanted to bring up, these are probably two separate issues, right? There's one that's gravel to go to cement, which is extremely expensive. Totally understand. The other one is if we already have asphalt, how do we improve those if they're just absolutely annihilated? That's the guidance I'm looking for.

And one of my other questions, Joe, is there... Is there some of these on this list that would be a benefit to not just the landowners, but also to the city? And I look at the alley parking or the alley driveways. The alley ones off Main Street, I'm not saying it correctly. You have a couple of them. I think for those that have been through alleys half a block off of Main Street, some have been improved over the few years and some I wouldn't drive down it.

Yeah, the...

In my opinion, a few of those are on our list that we really need to take a look as a city.

The alleys adjacent to Main Street, in my opinion, they need to be maintained, and they probably have been needed to be maintained for a while. We've been limping them along, but if you look at them, they're to the point that they need to be rebuilt. I mean, the hard surface now is better than... No surface. I mean, it's drivable. It's bumpy. There's potholes. I mean, I shouldn't say it's easy. It's easier to get a blade down a gravel alley or we do have a box scraper on a loader. Those are easier to get into, obviously. But the alleys that are asphalt are a little more difficult.

Would it be possible for us to have the discussion on those? Will you guys be willing to have that discussion, especially the ones right off of Main and see if there's any opposition to those? Because I totally agree. I think the ones just directly off Main Street do need to be maintained with a hard surface for obvious reasons because it does get activity and there is traffic that is on there and And of course, we have events throughout the year where Main Street is closed down. And so there has some obviously traffic that does go through that. So I don't know if that's something you guys are willing to do.

It's up to you guys, obviously. But that was one of the biggest questions we had is how do you make it fair? If you're going to pay for some of someone else's, how do you not do the same thing for other people going forward?

Does that make sense? And I think part of My rationale is because the public does use the downtown area, especially when Main Street is closed down. I don't know if you guys agree with that or not, but we do know there's events that, well, just for instance, this last weekend, I'm sure with the parade, there was activity that was going down our alleys.

So how would you guys like to proceed? Do you want to just pick the three and start with that, or do you want to just...

I'd like to scrap the alleys that the citizens don't want any because, I mean, there's no sense in doing something that nobody wants.

I wouldn't say nobody wants.

It looks like the majority.

The majority, I'll agree with that. I was just going to piggyback off what Marty said is there was somebody in the audience who raised their hand for wanting this project to go on. I don't know who the question would be directed towards, but could somebody explain the 8% interest in how. That amount is chosen and then I know I saw a lot of varying amounts people had calculated on their. On their own, whether it be 50 dollars a month or 100 dollars a month, if that project were assessed to them, I'm just wondering if somebody, as Marty said, goes around and collects the necessary votes for their neighborhood to improve their alley. It might be beneficial to understand how the percent interest was applied or is applied and. That way, the neighbors can make a determination on whether they can afford it or not. That'd be Michelle.

I can explain the interest. It's always been 8%, I guess. The city does not want to be the banker and keep it on the tax rolls. And I know right now with what the interest rates are, 8% isn't far off on what they're going to get at the bank anyway. So it's not very high. When rates are at 3% or 4%, it is high, but we don't want to be the bank. So it entices them to go get a personal loan.

The question, do we use those alleys off of Main Street for garbage collection? Does the city trucks run up and down those alleys? We do not.

Is this private? Does like Medima or anyone else use those for garbage?

Yeah, there are some private dumpsters. Okay.

I do think we should go line by line with the people in the audience. Obviously, a majority seem to be against it. But if there are people in favor of a specific area, they could come up and speak to it. But knowing that I personally will be voting against it unless somebody makes an argument and then. we can have a debate on those singular alleyways as we go down the list, I think would be the best.

Justin, if somebody's in favor of it, what do they have to do to get the 51% to get their alley done? If there's 51% out there, how do they handle that?

You're talking about them initiating the project?

Correct.

I think if they could bring that, gather those signatures and bring them to the city, we could bring a resolution back for that.

That's the same thing we have with the gravel road in town, right? 51% want to pay, but they pay for it. Yeah. Ain't that right, Terry?

Not sure the last time we've utilized that process.

Yeah. So we have the option to, if we wanted to bring an assessment forward, we could. And then this would be the same process. You're right. We have had instances where a neighborhood would get together come to us and say, hey, we have the support to hard surface our alley. And the city's also done that route too.

And we've had that, Joe, with obviously the couple of gravel roads we still have left in the city, which, you know, the one by the middle school, there's four landowners involved. One wanted it, the three said no, so it's still gravel. But... going back to the majority of the vote. And I know alleys would go that same way, but I guess what I'm looking at is if one person put one of these on a list, one person on an alley of, once again, 12 people, and that one person put their letter together, but the other 11 are saying, no, it's pretty cut and dry. Next.

So that's what I was going to suggest.

That's what I'm trying to get at.

Should we put the Main Street ones last, and then we can go through everyone else that's here? Yeah. Which ones are the Main Street ones, Joel? Can you tell me which ones those are? What number?

There's C and H on here.

Oh, sorry.

Three. Yes, three and eight. Yep, the ones that say East of.

So those are the only two right off of Main Street. Correct. Okay, so there are only two. So how about we just go down the list?

And I think What Tim brought up is probably a good way to go about it. If there's anyone in favor, come up and speak. If not, I think it's fair to assume that no one's in favor of it.

That's what I say. It'll be a little intimidating if you're in favor of it, but I'll go down the list. If no one's in favor of it, you guys want to just vote right now and then just kill it or what?

I don't necessarily need to hear from all of the ones that are against it. I want to know if there's anybody here to support a particular block. That's what I mean. That's what I was asking.

And one really quick thing, Mayor, is maybe what we can do is we can at least come to a consensus that if The ones that we are going to say, no, we'll just keep the same. Are you guys in favor of using the existing money to do improvements? So in other words, mayor's number five is use the current money we have in place. to maintain the... And maybe increase our maintenance schedule a little bit. If we say no to the concrete tonight, at least they know that, in fact, there's going to be some money.

Yeah, definitely keep maintaining them.

Yeah, so we go back to mirrors number five. Yes. Are you guys okay with that? Yeah.

I think everyone's okay with that. Okay.

Maybe you can explain that to everybody.

Okay, so real quick. I don't know. I think you just explained it, so I'm not sure. So we're going to start with this gentleman, because I talked to him today, and he was pretty in favor of it.

My name is Don Walker. I live at the 400 block of East 7th. Which number are you on here, then? Maybe number 7 under 18.

Mayor.

Do we have to go in order? I would say start with... Number one. Okay. I just want to let you guys know I am in favor, but I do got a question. To be in favor also, until you guys decide what you're going to do with that money, it's going to be hard for us to make a decision. I mean, you're going to pay for some, you're not going to pay for some. That's exactly what I'm working on. So it is kind of hard for us as a group. I mean, if you're going to pay for some of it or you're going to help us improve the asphalt that's already there. I'm in favor of it. But if we're going to pay for it 100%, I'm not in favor of it. So that's kind of where I'm at.

So to give you guys some background of this gentleman's situation is they already paid for their alley to be asphalted. They're asking if we go to cement, can they get some credit for what they, rather than be assessed twice, give me credit for the first time you've been assessed. Would you agree that that's the fair statement? Yes. Okay. Does that make sense? This is a unique situation. So I'll have you come up when it's your turn, if that's all right, sir.

Thank you. So, Mayor, I'd just suggest start at the top, call for proponents of item number one. If there are any, they can come and say their piece, and then you can call for a motion on that resolution.

I'll move to deny number one.

I'll second. Okay, we have a motion to deny number one, which is the 300 block of East 1st. Is there any proponents of number one, the 300 block of East 1st? Anyone that's in favor of card services?

I'm Josh Peterson. I own a property at 114 North Kimball, which is on that 300 block east first. I am in favor of it. I know there's other that are here that are also in favor. I did talk to, and from what I understood the paperwork is, is that people didn't show up. It was a yes vote. Okay. that they were in favor. If they didn't show up tonight to contest it, they would be in favor.

Is that true, Mr. Johnson? Is that true, Mr. Schrager?

Is that true, Joelle? It doesn't indicate that in our letter.

So we have had other situations in the past where we've had gravel roads or whatever roads and then A citizen that was involved would physically go around, and you guys have all been involved in this, and they go around and they hand us a list. So there's no question whatsoever, are they yes votes or are they no votes? And so if we, tonight, I would say we're not killing these. There is, Josh, if you want to go out and show us that there's support for that particular area, there's no reason why we can't bring this back.

But we've got it.

So we physically need to see the names. We don't know. We can't slot them in this one or that one without them actually giving us the names.

We went and talked to the neighbors. I've got one on the corner. Scott Schutz has the Graham Tire warehouse to the south of me. He has four lots. I visited with him last Thursday. He wasn't going to make it to the meeting tonight. He wasn't happy about paying the bill, but he is for the project. So he has four lots. I have one. The rest of these gentlemen can speak for themselves, but they are for it. We've been trying to get this alley paved for probably 10 years. It's been a long time. There's a catch basin right at Kimball and... The alley, every time it rains, gravel goes into that catch basin. It's an old catch basin. It's round. I mean, it's a problem area. So, yeah, us as neighbors have been visiting with Joe probably every year since he's been here. I visited with Terry. So it is a problem area, and we as neighbors have been talking about it for a long time. Thank you.

My name is Scott Appletoff. I live at 315 2nd Avenue, right in the middle of there. And definitely put up a garage here in the last few years and hauls a lot of... What's that?

I think that was on the wrong one. Is this the right one?

Yeah, that's the right one. But anyway, built a garage recently in the last few years and hauls a lot of mud.

This is your project, right? We just want to make sure you're on this one. Yes. Okay.

And I'm in favor of it. I get tired of having to clean my garage out constantly. I know my neighbor next to me, he's deceased, but the property, every year we have a good amount of rain, he gets probably three or four inches of water in his yard. There's currently nobody living in that house. His son owns it and lives in Sioux Falls. But it's definitely a water problem in that alleyway.

Okay. Thank you. I'm Harold Torberson. I bought that house that I lived on three teenies first, 33 years ago. And this is the first year that we've been able to drive through the alley that didn't kind of shake the windows out of my car. I've been trying for about 10 years. I noticed that they came through a couple of times and surveyed the alley. And what happens is they'll go through and they'll blade sand into those chuck holes that are this big. And the next time it rains, it's gone. And we've been working on it for a long time, trying to get something done. And I don't know that this letter ever said that we had to have a list of people that we have to have the names of everybody that's in favor. There might be a lot of places in town that don't want an alley, but most of the people on our alley want that fixed. And I don't think anything in this letter said that we had to go around and get it.

We're just trying to, again, as the mayor pointed out, we're just trying to get an idea of what we want to do with a game plan. And the council, at least me, and you guys can speak for yourself, is if we see that there is more than 50% that is in favor, then we'll consider it. But if there's less, then there won't be consideration. Sounds like you guys have it.

We've got way more than 50%. If there's six lots on each side of the alley, roughly, on my side of the alley, there's five lots that are already in favor of it. And we don't know about the one on the corner. And on the north side of the alley, we've got more than half on that side.

Mayor, can we put this on if somebody has put it on the next agenda? Sure.

So what you're asking is just take this particular item and put it on the next one?

Or if there's more.

Or what?

Or if there's more after this.

Okay, yeah, yeah.

Okay. So we'll whittle this down. Whenever they have a list that says the majority of the people are in favor of it, will you please put it on the agenda? Yes, we can do that.

And if they're not in favor, we'll just get rid of it. Okay, go ahead. I'll just say, is this one where, from what you're hearing, do you just want to table this item and have it come back next meeting? Is it? It sounds like they may have a majority or they can document that by the time next meeting comes.

No, we can table it.

It's up. So I would suspect if we deny it, there still isn't a reason why they can't bring it back.

Is there a cooling off period for this?

Well, other than this is a public hearing for an assessment notice, so you're in the middle of that process that's outlined in state law. So if there's consideration that you might approve it, you might want to table it and continue the discussion.

Okay.

I'll move to amend the motion to table item number one.

And we are second. Okay, does everyone understand what just happened here? Okay. Okay. So here's what's going to happen. I'm going to break it down real simple. If people come up to the podium and there appears to be more than 50%, we are going to table it for the next meeting, in which case the only way it will pass at that time is if that neighborhood with those adjoining property owners bring back written documentation of a majority support. And then at that time, the council will take it into consideration. Does that make sense?

And the table is just for number one that's shown on the board.

For just this item. So you guys are neither approved or denied. It's going to be on the next meeting. And then when you bring back documentation, we will make a decision at that time.

So if I understand what you just said, we could bring back 75% signatures and you still could vote it down. Is that what I'm saying? Is that what I heard?

I think that's probably the case for every single thing we would ever bring to city council. They ultimately have the decision. But I would imagine that if you brought 75%, they're probably going to go ahead and agree with you. Does that make sense?

Yeah, we have seven that are absolutely on board. We have one that says, I don't care. So, I mean, we have...

So, you're in charge of getting the signatures? I will.

Just because we've been working on this forever, we just want to keep them momentary. Sorry, we've been working on this for a long time, so we want to keep the momentum going. Like I said, we have seven that have committed, which is more than the 51%. Right. Okay, so does everyone understand their homework? Yes.

Okay, so now you guys can maybe understand my point of view, where it seems like nobody was really in favor of it, but there actually is a demand for some of these projects. Okay. Next one. You guys are good. Go get your signatures.

Mr. Mayor, before we move on, we need to take a vote on that.

Oh, sorry about that. Okay. Real quick. Would it be beneficial when those gentlemen bring their signatures back? I mean, is it beneficial at all to us or does it matter to us at all what they're expecting the terms to be? Just like the gentleman on number seven mentioned, you know, if it's, he doesn't want his asphalt replaced, if he's going to be paying full price for it, but he may be open to it if there's some money. So are they expected to bring their terms with them?

That would be 100% up to you guys. That's why this was such a nuanced discussion. I figured we'd just knock it all out at once. So it's up to you. That's the thing. Are we going to pay for part of it? Are we going to give them credit if we go from asphalt to cement? I don't know. That's 100% here, guys.

We'd probably have to see what the bids are to know what we're paying.

I was going to say it's not up to council to have to decide that tonight. You can have the next two weeks to think about how you want to handle those. Okay.

Does that make sense? Okay. Anyone else in the audience want to discuss this if you're the first item before we vote to table it?

Not very well. One other comment, too, is that by waiting, you'll know how many alleys you're still considering after tonight, too, which might help with your decision on finance. Right.

Yes. I realize this is complicated. I'm sorry. OK. Anyone else before we vote? All those in favor of motion. All those in favor of. Tabling it. Say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Same sign. That one is tabled. Next one. 900 block of East 2nd. Is there anyone in favor of this one? The 900 block of East 2nd, which is number two. Is there anyone in favor? Well, this looks like an easy one. Motion by Mr. Goldhammer to deny. Second by Mr. McArdle. Sorry about that. Would anyone in the audience like to discuss this? If they vote yes, I just want everyone to, if they vote yes, it does not move forward, because it's kind of a double negative. Does that make sense?

And Joe, as we go through these, if there's one that comes up that you feel the city needs to take a good look at it, please bring it to our attention. Otherwise, if nobody's up here at the podium for this one, which, nope, don't seem to be up there, it's pretty tough for any kind of support to come from the council, I would think. You got it, Joe? I'm looking at the neighborhood of this, and I'm assuming just some neighbor wanted it paved. I don't think that came from us internally.

Are you in favor of the 900 block to be second to be paved?

I live in the 900 block on the second.

Can you state your name just for everyone at home?

There's only two places in the whole block that are bad. And it's due to the cable TV that settles every year. And both places are behind my two houses there. So a little maintenance just in the spring would help a lot. And I've asked for it. I haven't complained. And I've only asked about three times in the last 10 years. So I'm not a big complainer. believe me, but it needs to be taken off the list. Okay.

Jill, put it on the other list to just maintain and make it look nice with gravel, okay? Thank you. We'll take care of it. Okay. All those in favor of the motion to deny this one, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. That one will not be done or assessed. Do we have to go in order?

Let's just keep going.

Okay, we'll keep going. Next one. 300 block of North Main Street, east of North Main Street. Okay, you guys are telling me to do it? That's what we're going to do. We're going to bring back the commercial one. Next, number four. If you're out there at number four, 600 block of East 4th, north of East 4th. Is there anyone in favor of this one? Is there anybody in favor of this one? Okay, looks like we have someone.

There's someone.

I live on the 600 block of East 5th, which is actually under, yes, Katie Bushbach. So currently right now, one of the issues is that 5th Street's being redone and it's tore up.

Can we quiet down in the audience, please?

So we only have our alleyway to get to our house right now anyway. It's primarily alley parking. Most of us use our alley for the garage. And then we, you know, if there is off-street parking, it's right off of a really busy corner, which... tends to get a lot of traffic and a lot of kids speeding up and down so even if you are parked on the side street it gets a little bit sketchy with having your car parked there it is an emergency route also so right now our alleyway it gets washed out with every rain and you're i mean it it feels like you're off-roading half the time there's a huge gap right by the sidewalk to go on diverse street even uh between the actual sidewalk and the road there's a giant pothole um i've also sent in requests for that sidewalk um to be looked at because there has been pedestrian and bicyclist accidents. You can't see around that curve. So there's a fence there. So you can't actually see if there's a little kid riding their bicycle ahead of their parents. You can't see them coming. And even right now, there are signs up on the side street. So With those signs saying, you know, road construction ahead, you can't see anything coming. I've asked for that sign to be taken or moved or something, so that way we can. And it's been told to me two times that it doesn't violate any codes either. So either way, that alleyway is a really... Really dangerous entry and exit. And along with that, there's tons of potholes and it doesn't get it doesn't get the maintenance that it's supposed to. So one of my questions would be with that money that goes into that fund and that is in that fund that I think you said like three hundred and sixty thousand dollars. Plus, you know, whatever would be there next year. Since the citizens have put that money into that, is that going to be what the city uses to fund that if it were to pave the alleyways? Or is that going to be money that would be assisting the citizens since we were the ones who paid in for that portion?

That is what we're here to decide tonight. So we haven't made that decision yet. I guess they haven't made that decision yet. Okay. Does that make sense?

Okay. So if it doesn't get used, then where does that money go towards? I mean, if we're, you know, sitting that far ahead, then are we just going to continue to build that fund?

Well, that's what we're hoping to decide tonight to see if there's any alleys that do make sense.

Okay.

And maybe they're one of these, maybe it's none of these, maybe it's something else in the future. Maybe this will spur a conversation for a different alley. I'm not sure.

Okay. I would say some of that fund money should go to fixing your potholes. Definitely.

Yeah. Put that on the list, Joe.

Okay. I just don't know that they're going to be spending $360,000 to fix potholes. And if that's the case, then don't we think that's a bigger issue than what we're making of it?

Yeah, we won't use that much money. That's what I'm saying. I think there's a little bit of surplus. We just have to figure out what's the direction.

Okay.

Anything else?

No.

Okay. Thank you. Is anyone else in favor of the 600 block of East 4th? In favor of? Okay. Have you guys heard enough to make a decision?

Motion to deny.

Motion by Mr. Smith to deny.

Second.

Second by Mr. Barrington. Further discussion?

I would say that if any of these are denied tonight, they do still have the same possibility of collecting signatures from neighbors and bringing the issue back to us for reconsideration that this isn't by any means the end. Right. If somebody wanted to get signatures to do that.

Perfect. Okay. Anything else? All right, all those in favor of the motion to deny, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. The 600 block of East 4th will not be done. 700 block of East 4th. Is there anyone in the audience that is in favor of the 700 block of East 4th? Please come to the podium.

I won't throw anything at you.

Dan Chaseman. So, long story short, we've been... 10 years ago or so we tried to get this done and um got it approved sort of with pretty much a quorum or everyone that lived on the alley um or the streets fourth and fifth but since then there's been major turnover and who owns the properties there so i understand it um there's nine Nine properties on our alley. Seven of them use them as their main driveway, main with their garage and everything. There's no access off 4th or 5th Street for most of them. Now two of them, and unfortunately two of the longest or most expensive portions of that do not ever use the alley so i totally understand the the not wanting to um one of them's one of my friends my good neighbor so i don't i know nothing you can create hard feelings like financial so this is Um, selfishly, I really want to do this because, um, just the mass amount of cars up and down our alley a day. Um, I, the, it used to be absolutely terrible for potholes. I will say it has gotten better. Thank you. Um, over the last year, year and a half. Um, but it's still, um, in the springtime winter, a mud pit, uh, during the summer, it's a, It's a dust storm. And like I said, it's it's our main driveway. Maybe I'm selfish. I know, but it's just I do represent the largest bill of that. So, well, it's not great. It's still something I wanted to do. But like I said, you know, I understand if there's pushback on it. But, you know, I don't know as of right now. I know Ben is here. He lives on the other end. I don't know what if we would have a quorum or majority, whatever you want to call it, of the current residents there. Like I said previous, we did, but I don't know. There's probably only three of us that still own that were back from that time. So I just wanted to speak my piece and not get anything thrown at me. Thank you. Thank you.

I'm Ben and I own the other end and I'm just, just not covered the exact same thing he just said. Is there a reason that you don't just do what we always used to do and send out the letters, find out who's interested because of the multi uses of the different alleys. There's a lot of people in this room that don't have alleys that are ever even driven down. They're covered with grass. There's other places where there's 80% garages and driveway access. If you just sent out the letters and let everybody vote, wouldn't that answer your guys' question whether or not you have some alleys that want to be paved and some don't? Because there are people here that aren't representing what they didn't even know they had to represent. Maybe they want it, maybe they don't. But the alleys have a lot of different uses depending on where they're located in town. But we want ours. So I think we can get your signatures back if that's what you guys decide to do. I also think if you guys decide that you're throwing money towards them, you're going to find more people that may say yes that are now saying no. So you're asking us to click these off the list without enough information as to what we're clicking off the list. So if you guys would decide first, here's what we're doing. We're subsidizing 20% and we're leaving the homeowners with 80% and send out that letter and everybody can send their thing back that said yes or no, wouldn't that solve all this to let you go forward and do what you want to do anyways?

That's the debate we've had in the office a lot of times. How do we make the decision if we don't know what the appetite is and how do the people with the appetite know until we make a decision?

You guys got to decide how they're being funded and what it's going to cost and then let the homeowners that are on the alleys and the property owners on the alleys say yay or nay. That would probably take care of all this without any more discussion, but that's all I have to say.

Thank you. So anyone else on that block? What was that?

In favor.

Yeah, sorry. Anyone that's in favor of that block? Which one are we on? Number five?

Yeah.

Okay, perfect. I got to start checkmarking here. Hold on. Okay. Is anyone else in favor of the 700 block of East 4th? I think you guys have enough information to make a decision. And as Tim said, if you guys do want to go out and get your signatures and come back and bring it back and then give them a chance to get their signatures. Move to table. We want a table?

I want to talk if you're going to table. I'm not for it, but I want to.

We can't come up and talk about it.

Oh, I'm the guy he was talking about. All right, state your name, please. I own the second biggest, I don't know what Ben's is, but it's right up in there. And I don't use the alley at all, ever. I don't even have access to it. My fence on the backside goes along the entire alley. And I'm not for this, because I don't want to, A, spend $10,000 for that. And I also just wanted to speak, because I've talked to everybody along 4th Street, minus maybe one person at the very end on 4th, and all of us are against it. So they're going to have a hard time getting the quorum. And I'm fine with if they try, but you said they could get the quorum even if this gets voted down as a no. If you guys vote no right now, he can still get the quorum and bring it back, correct, is what you said? That is correct. So I think for the peace of the rest of us on the block, if we can vote it down no today and then they can work on that quorum, I would appreciate that. So I don't have to sit and watch my mail and follow this.

In a second meeting. That makes sense.

So I'm asking that you'd vote it no. And then as you said, they can get the quorum and bring it back to you if that's how it ends up. But I'd rather put that burden on them than on the rest of us to come back a second time. That's fair. If you would. That's fair.

I'd move to deny because I'll remove my motion.

What is your motion?

The table was the table. OK, so now I'll move to deny because there's only two out of them. They can get the rest of their group together and then they can come back. Perfect.

Yeah. And at that point in time, as Ben brought up, then we might have somewhat of a plan of saying, are we going to pay for any of it or part of it? And that's a discussion I'd like to have at the end of this. Perfect. Just to make for sure that we kind of give Joe some direction.

Is that a second? Yeah, I'll second. Okay, perfect.

So before we vote then, Justin, so if there is a deny, is there a – obviously we've got to specify a time for hearings. They've got to be notified for so long. What kind of delay are we looking at compared to a two-week getting signatures?

That's what – and then do we get a pay to – It might be an additional meeting.

I'd give him two meetings to get – I think one meeting is probably too soon.

I'm just looking at what the process has to be internally. If one is denied, just like the other thing, you know, there's obviously the 20 days. Do we have to pay for a hearing? Do we have to pay to get it?

We'd have to pay to have it re-advertised. We'd have to send out the letters again, hit that timeline, I would say, just to be conservative, a month and a half to two months to get it back here.

That was my question, just about if we deny or if we need a table to get these answers taken care of, because now you have one come back in two weeks, and then now you're telling this one's going to be two months. Are we going to try to take care of all these at the same time or not?

I'd prefer to take care of them all at once.

So in my case, then I would be tabling it, and let's see what happens in two weeks.

You would. Well, the motion is to... Right now we have a motion to deny. Okay, we have a motion to deny. Let's do a roll call then. I'm not sure what you guys want.

Davis. Just to be clear, Michelle, this is on the motion to deny, correct? Yes. That is correct. So if you vote yes, you're voting to deny.

Davis. Aye. McArdle. Aye. Barrington.

No.

Schlemgen.

Yes.

Greenwhite.

Aye.

Smith.

Aye.

Savers. Aye. Goldhammer. Aye.

Okay. Motion carries, which means that one fails. So they're not doing that alley. If you guys would like to go get signatures, you'll have to bring it back and go through the whole process again. Make sense? Thank you. Next one. 500 block, the 7th. Is there anyone here in favor of that alley? There's nobody here in favor of that alley. Well, wait, wait, wait. Okay. It's got to be scary.

I'm Gerald Meter. I live at 5067. And everybody on the south side of that alley don't want it. But then we got to fight the school and the Pavarans Arts Building. So how do you get a majority vote there? I don't understand that one.

So are you in favor or you're against it?

I'm against it.

Okay. Well, then there's nobody here in favor of it.

What's that?

There's nobody here in favor of it, then, it sounds like. Okay.

Motion to deny.

Motion to deny.

I'll second. Thank you.

We got a motion and a second by, it sounds like, Mr. Goldhammer. Okay. All those in favor of the motion to deny, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. 400 Block v. 7th Avenue. Now is your chance. All right. I got two questions. One says it's a resolution of necessity.

What's the definition of resolution of necessity? Can you guys be quiet in the audience, please?

If you're talking in the audience, can you please keep it down?

Thank you. Just for my reference, I was just curious what the resolution of necessity. Are we deeming that it needs to be done for the city? Or what's the reason for it being called that?

That would be a Mr. Johnson question.

Essentially, it's just the title of the document. The council is making the decision on whether they believe the project is necessary to move forward with. Perfect.

Well, with that said, 400 block of East 7th, Muth Electric owns six lots. I own one. I am speaking on behalf of them also. So we do have 51% and I think maybe even 60%. So I think we would pass. My biggest thing is it is a paved alley now. It also has high hot traffic from the back center. I'd like to think about those two things when you're looking at funds and how you might disperse them.

Okay, so this is one of those unique situations we didn't know how to answer. They've already paid once for an assessment for asphalt, and now the city's new standard is cement. So how do we make it fair? Do we charge them twice, which probably is not fair to them, or do we give them credit for the asphalt or what the asphalt would cost?

Joe, in the past when they paid for something, and the city's supposed to keep it up for life after they do it in, what happens if you change from asphalt to pavement?

So within our roadways, that's our... That is our current standard is the road is built once and then we take it over.

Right.

What's the policy for the alleys?

Alleys, enough of them are gravel. We don't have a lot that are hard surface that I would say that we have not yet established a standard. Like I said, the alleys along Main Street were asphalt prior that. have been assessed 100% by the property owners, or to the property owners.

Who paid for theirs when they put it in? Do you know?

I haven't gone back and looked for the records. It's been 20 years, but it's been a while. This gentleman said that they paid for it themselves.

Also, there has been situations over the years where the city did patch it, and then their policy was to not patch it. So now it's become, actually some of the patch created some of the problems we're having because it held water.

And now you guys can see my conundrum. I'm supposed to take direction from the city council of what you guys would like to do, and that's a goofy situation, and that's why we're here to maybe establish a policy and maybe figure out what we need to do. I appreciate it.

I guess my personal opinion on this for something that we've already assessed and put in, and now we're changing the standard, but I think that the city should take ownership of the pavement that was put in and then repair it if it's in disrepair. as we do with other things that we have paved.

And go back to asphalt, continue to do asphalt.

If the city deems that it needs to be improved to cement, and that's the work that we deem that we need to do to make this alleyway make the best fence for the city of Mitchell, then that's something that should be on the burden of the city, I believe.

Excellent. Well, I'll be looking forward to next week or the week after. It'll be the only time.

Well, he is speaking on behalf of more than 50%, I guess, because he's representing most of the whole top side than some of the down. So based on what you guys did in the past, you tabled it. So if that's what you'd like to do, you may choose to do so now. What's the table? I'll second. Second to table. Further discussion? Any of the audience like to discuss this one?

Okay. Mayor? Well, yes. Since we're in the hearing part, I don't know if you want to call for any opposition on that one, if anybody's here to speak against. Great question.

Is there anyone in the audience in opposition to the 400 block of East 7th, which is number 7, that would like to speak at this time? Okay. Don't be shy. Come on up. Yes.

I own the 408 East Sabbath. My name is Randy Rezek. I don't live in town, but we have a rental. And when we bought that house about 12 years ago, we paid the assessment on that out. And now we're going to get hit again, and it's a rental. So what do you do with that? I think the city should bring it back, fix the asphalt, or if they've got to have concrete, they should pay for the concrete. And the other thing is, is you go by the city shop on the bypass and there's this huge pile of crushed concrete. That makes hell of a good paving on alleys. What is it there for?

I believe we use that as base for the rest of our roads. Crushed concrete? Yeah, we use it as a base before we lay down asphalt or cement.

Okay, because there's a lot of it piled up there, and that would make a lot of alleys in good shape. That's all I have.

Okay. Anyone else for or against? Tim looks like he wants to say something.

I still think we should deny this because I don't feel the assessment makes sense to me that we've already assessed these individuals, these homeowners, for that improvement. And so now we're saying that we want to improve it even more and assess them even more. But in all other aspects of an assessment, we would have said that we take ownership of that. And in some of the letters that we, or as we discussed with people, we said that if we improve your alley, it's a one-time fee. And then these folks are examples of how it potentially is not a one-time fee. That just makes almost no sense to me whatsoever. I understand that we're changing the surfacing, but I don't believe that we should be assessing these individuals.

I would like to note, I do believe our standard for alleys is gravel. I can't speak for what's been done in the past, but I would think that the reason an alley was upgraded was because, like you're saying now, the residents wanted it, which meant they also partook in paying for it. I don't feel there are actually a lot of alleys in this city that are Now, if we were required to maintain those 100% within that asphalt standard as we do a street, I would say that now the funds that we have saved up have just been spent because the alleys that are existing are in the same situation that this alley is in. It was paved. But now they are deteriorating for the fact that we struggled to get in there to maintain them because of equipment size. Our standard for alleys is currently gravel. If it is council's decision to, that we are going to maintain current hard surface alleys to that standard, we now have shifted our budget focus. And that is direction that's given to me how to spend those dollars.

It's a confusing one. Okay. Let's just do a roll call on this one, too. So we're doing a roll call on the 400 block of East 7th to table it. I means table.

Barrington.

Aye.

Schlumgen.

Yes.

Greenway.

Aye. Smith. Aye.

Savers. Aye. Goldhammer. No. Davis.

Aye.

McArdle. Aye.

Okay, motion carries. That one is tabled. Should we go back to number three or number eight, or do we want to have a little discussion on how we're going to handle?

Let's do three or one and eight. Three and eight.

Three and eight. Three. Okay. Do we want to discuss how you guys want to handle them first, or do you want to see who's in favor first? Alright, let's see who's in favor. So we're going to go back to number three, which is the 300 block of North Main Street. Is there anyone in favor of this, which is right off of Main Street? Which is currently asphalt. Okie dokie.

How did it come before us?

Because this is an asphalt alley that is in rough shape that probably needs to be... that people have asked for. It's asphalt, so now the question... I don't know. There's people that ask for it.

Right.

But just because they're, they could be supportive of it and say, Hey, you need to do something. And it's like, well, what do we do? Do we do asphalt? Or do we do concrete? That's why discussions here tonight. That makes sense.

And I think what you said earlier to those Main Street alleyways, we hear more from general public than just residents living on the alley.

Yes. This is the only remaining alley on the east side of Main Street that is asphalt that has not been assessed to a concrete alley.

Maybe you just answered that, but did the... Did the business owners pay for that, Joe, the current beat-up asphalt?

It's my understanding that all alleys adjacent to Main Street have been assessed.

They have been.

Yep.

So, again, it's, you know, we have to make a call in the office. Do we pay for it again, or do we improve it? And if we do improve it, do they pay?

I did not understand that question. If your question was, was this alley that's asphalt currently was assessed when it was paved, I don't know the answer to that. Well, I guess what I was referring to is the other alleys that are currently concrete were assessed and they were asphalt prior to the concrete being placed by an assessment.

And Joe, do you know if any of those assessments were the city funded any of the assessment? I'm just thinking of like the one, I can't remember, it was by the Carnegie.

So I know there were some that, anyone that obviously had city property adjacent to, we partook in those portions.

Okay.

But anything that was private was assessed 100%. Okay. Is my understanding.

Why don't you come on up? Did anyone ask for that one to be done? Did anyone ask for that one to be done? Other than other residents, like no one that owns property in that alley?

It was on my list, so at some point somebody asked for it. Now, whether it was specifically for it to be assessed or for it to be improved, more likely for it to be improved. I do know there are basements within there that do receive water during larger rain events from the alley. Concrete surfacing would help prevent that, not necessarily 100% prevent it, but definitely help. So those are some of the issues that some of those properties are up against.

I guess my thing is it's an alleyway, and I guess if you walk down that alley, you can even look at some of the pictures there, there's far bigger issues. If the building's actually maintaining structure, then We are have been renovating 1, like, 1, like, 6 years, but as we get into it, we're very concerned about the building that shares the wall with us and things that were across the street from what used to be 2 large buildings that are now a parking lot. I mean, that's me. It's kind of more of a concern than an alleyway. And I know, like, yes, like, Main Street has flooded, but all the water that came in over the last six years that we've had the building, it's always been from Main Street flooding and nothing to do with an alley. We also have a basement, but any water that's came in has always came in from the Main Street side and not from the alley side. And again, like, I think unless anyone's actually asked for it, I think there's more concern than the actual alley itself, like the actual road.

Can we have you state your name for the moment? My name's Alex Morris. Thank you.

Round number three, right? Motion to deny.

I'll second.

Second by Mr. Goldhammer. Anyone else in the audience want to discuss this one? Okay, all those in favor of the motion to deny, say aye.

Aye.

Pull the same sign. Motion carries. Last one, 700 block of North Raleigh Street, east of North Raleigh Street. Anyone here in favor of that one, which is, again, right up, yeah, we pull that map up. So that is right behind the Core Trust Bank. Nobody is in favor of it. Okay, motion to deny. I'll second. Second by Mr. Greenway. Further discussion? Anyone in the audience?

So just on your list, Joe, again?

Yeah, this one. This one is super. It's downtown Main Street. We get complaints about it all the time. Maybe not by the owners, but so what do we do?

Right, and that's one of my concerns is, you know, we're looking at the heart of our city, and we've been trying to take care of everything down there, and I know exactly the salary. Obviously, it's... It's horrific. And it is exactly where everybody that has an event at the Corn Palace where everybody parks around there. They park in the Summerland parking lot. So obviously we know it's walked on. I just questioned if it's something that the city needs to take a look at some of these areas and sweeten the pot. The problem is our protocol before was it's 100% enforced to the owners and I just

That's the call. We can't make that call.

And it's in that location, and we can't get the support to get her taken care of.

Oh, you know, the situation we've been in. Do we rip it out and pay for concrete on our own? Which I think was probably my opinion as well, Tim. You know, just rip it out, let's just do concrete. If we want it, then we need it. But then is it fair to someone else that wants it? Because, hey, you paid for that person, so... We could probably establish some sort of a policy.

Yes.

Joe, just so I get this straight, like when you did the west side bang hards, that alley, they got assessed.

Correct.

And that was pavement before.

Correct. So who made that decision? We're going to do it. Did you rally around or did the city just do it? Terry, come on up.

We told the property owners and we had that question came up. we told the property owners that it's not according to city standard asphalt alley we can't do an inverted crown so what what's happening is you can't pave at a certain grade just because and you're still forcing the water back into the buildings like on main street we get All these alleys have had complaints on before. That's the reason why they're on our list. There isn't an alley that we talked about that we haven't got complaints about before. And we told people the only way to fix it is to put a concrete alley in and to get that inverted crown. Right now when it rains with a gravel alley or an asphalt alley, all that water is going into the backyards or going in buildings. The only way to fix it is to do an inverted alley, and then it gets it into the middle, and it gets it out to the street. So we told the people that had asphalt alleys, we'll rebuild it, you pay the assessment, and then you will no longer have to pay for another assessment again because we're building it in the way that we need to build it in order to get that water away from your property, get it into the middle, get it out to the street so we can get rid of the water. And then they're sealed. Asphalt probably lasts 20 to 30 years. Concrete lasts 50 to 60 years. And it's easier for us to maintain, you know, a concrete alley than it is an asphalt alley. Or even when we blade a gravel alley, we can't blade that invert in there. It gets bladed straight or gets pushed to one side or the other. And then when it rains, it just goes on people's property. So we're trying to... make an improvement to make it better. We're trying to lessen the complaints that we get by doing these inverted alleys. And through the last 20 years since I've been here, that's what we've done. And we've done a majority of concrete alleys and we don't get any drainage complaints once we're done. Because we design them to grade, to drain, and we don't have the complaints. Sure, it's an added cost. And I think if you could come up with some kind of a ratio or an idea of, okay, this is the amount that the city is going to pay for, I think it would help make that decision better.

That was a great speech, Terry. So, did we vote on this one?

Move the table.

We move to table. We're on the last one. Motion. We have a motion. We haven't voted on it yet. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to discuss this? All those in favor of the motion to deny the last one, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries.

So we have two tables, right?

Okay. And you got those right. My paper looks crazy. I have no idea what happened. So hopefully you're keeping notes. One and seven. I'm going to put stars next to there. Okay.

Hey, 25%. Ain't bad, huh?

So now what do we do on the next one? Or do we want to discuss what we want to do in the future and how we're going to handle going from asphalt to cement? I don't want to just make the decision and get yelled at. Or do we move on to the actual approved resolution? I guess where everything's tabled, so we just skip the whole second one. Is that correct?

Yeah, we're on.

I think we're on public hearing. I think at this point you're ready to move on to 19 unless you wanted to have more discussion on the method of how you want to do assessments.

Yeah, the only thing Terry just brought up, Joe, is maybe you could come back and just say, here's the funds we have. This is what we anticipate we're getting on an annual basis. What can we use these funds best for? And does it make sense? And as far as I'm concerned, the Main Street alleys are a different animal than the residents. And so maybe you can come back with just, this is kind of, you know, we do this with sidewalks. We want to put sidewalks everywhere in the first year. Well, we know it's going to take 50 years for us because that's what we can afford. So what can we afford for alley improvements? If you can just maybe put some thought. Is that something you think you might be able to do, Joe?

Yeah, so with the dollars that we receive from the landfill, if we were to pay for 100%, it would be one alley a year.

Right, but I was thinking more of a shared. Yeah. And so what is that number as these guys brought up? Is it 80-20? Is it 60-40? What is something that at least we can discuss and then we can decide from there?

And I think one other thing to think about is if we are going to focus on hard surface would be the council's stance on maintenance.

Yeah.

If we put it all into cement and alleys, we're not going to have any money left to take care of potholes and hundreds of alleys around town.

Well, I think, and I'm not necessarily talking about gravel alleys. I'm talking about hard surface alleys. Hard surface alley maintenance is potentially more expensive when it's time to replace it than it is a gravel alley.

Well, the mayor said that it would be a little over 200 years to replace them all with concrete based on the money collected. So am I correct in saying that if we pay 50%, it's going to be a little over 100 years still? This guy's good at math. Yes, that's correct. So I'm saying I don't think that it's even feasible to do with 50% if it's going to be done in any amount of time.

I'd say 20 would be the best.

Yeah, I mean, that's probably a good number.

Joe, what's your opinion on that? Question, Mayor. The money that we're collecting from the landfill fees, was that intended to supplement the budget for maintaining alleys, or was that intended to do replacements, or don't we know? Because we had to have a budget for maintaining alleys before we initiated that fee. Correct.

Exactly.

That was implemented by my predecessor. That fee was in 2019. You're correct. We had an alley budget. And I think it was to enhance the alley budget, not necessarily focus on hard servicing as it was just improving what we had.

Then nothing happened for like six years, and now we have a chunk of money sitting there. What do we do with it? Well, on what, though? That's what I mean. That's the argument we have in the engineering department every week for the last two years, so. Okay. Do you guys have anything else? It sounds like your direction is for us to come up with some sort of cost share to go forward in the future for hard surfacing and then maybe increasing the gravel maintenance. Does that sound fair to everyone before we move on?

Yep. Perfect.

Okay, next. Action to approve Resolution R-2026-47, Plot of Lots 1 through 8 and Lot A of Legacy Court Edition. Mr. Jenkins.

Mr. Mayor and Council Planning Commission motion to approve this unanimously. The applicant is looking to flat off their piece of ground into separate lots. They have business condos on this area. Now they're looking to sell some of them off. It meets the standards for zoning in this area. The center will be an HOA for road maintenance and utility maintenance in that area. Can you answer any questions that you have?

Thank you. Second. Second by Mr. Goldhammer. 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 approved. Resolution R2026-48, Annexation of the Veterans Memorial Park Track 1, a subdivision, as shown on the agenda, Mr. Schrader.

Mr. Mayor, Council, this is a section of the Servicemen's Cemetery that the city helped install a restroom. And with that agreement, it was agreed to that this piece of property would be annexed into the city. With that, we can open it up to any questions.

Motion approved. Second. Motion by Mr. Saber, second by Mr. Smith. Further discussion? Anyone in the audience like to discuss this? All those in favor of the motion, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, same sign. Motion carried. Next, first reading on Ordinance O-2026-09, amending Mitchell City Code Section 1611 regarding animals at large, Mr. Johnson.

All right. Well, I'm going to try to keep this really easy. Mitchell previously had a leash requirement in 2022. That ordinance was updated to also allow use of remote pet callers and verbal command to keep the animal under control. This proposed ordinance would move back to requiring the physical leash. And I think with that, we can open it up for discussion.

Well, given this is first reading and obviously we've got people that are maybe want to give comments on both sides, but there's no reason to do it tonight and two weeks from now. But I say I'm going to make a motion to approve, and then that way we can gather more information and we can make our final decision in two weeks.

A second.

We got a motion to approve and a second. Further discussion? Would anyone in the audience like to discuss this? Just to be clear, this has to come back a second time, and at that point, We could have these discussions at that time or at this time. So is there anyone in the audience that would like to discuss this?

My name is Gail, and I'm the president and founder of Pearl and Rough Rescue. And I came back in April asking you guys to please consider reinstating the leash law. I understand. this city attorney stating that, yes, right now we do have where it states there's an issue of people not being in control of their dogs and abuse in verbal command language and remote control collars. What if the battery goes dead? Commands don't always work. There's people who have Fenced in yards, which I appreciate. Tie outs is tremendous. But when you're walking your dog, your dog can have a temperament just like we do and snap at any given time and you don't know when. And what if it goes and bites a child or another person or another dog? Who's going to be responsible for that? I'm trying to protect the dog. I'm talking for the dog here. Because that dog's going to be put down. And is it going to be fair to that dog? No. We need responsible owners. We need to start looking out for these dogs. There's way too many dogs running loose. Way too many. And then they get put down or get put in the city pound. And how many times are they going to be put in the city pound before they are deemed dangerous and be put down? That's not fair to them. Please reconsider reinstating this lease ordinance. I'm asking you. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else like to address this?

We got a couple.

My name is Mary Nath and I'm a homeowner in the vicinity of Patton Young Park over in the Holy Spirit area. And I am very much in favor of reinstating the leash law because as a homeowner, I like to use that park and I don't feel safe at that park if your animal is not on a leash. If it's on a leash, I can judge approximately how much space I need to give that animal. But without it being on a leash, I don't feel confident that the people who own the animal will not keep it from running up to me, bumping into me, jumping on me. And I think Alicia would solve that.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Loray Hussman. In June, as I walked my dog near Doty Park, a woman let her dogs out of her car as I passed them. The dogs ran down the sidewalk and attacked my dog. I never saw them running towards us. My dog had bites all over his body, and I thought they were going to kill him. The owner did nothing as her dogs attacked my dog. These dogs were aggressive and they should have been leashed. Kids walk their dogs around Doty Park and they could have easily attacked a child or a child walking their dog who did not have the ability to save their dog while being attacked. Luckily, I was able to grab my dog, but a small child would have had no chance with these dogs. It was one of the scariest experiences of my life. Since this incident, I have a hard time enjoying walks with my dog now for fear of this happening again. I should not have to be afraid while walking down the street for fear that an unleashed dog will attack me or my dog again. Owners need to be held accountable if their dog hurts someone while running around unleashed. I don't want any person or animal to go through what I did and passing a leash law can be the first step in preventing this from happening again. So thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in the audience? Anyone else?

I wasn't planning on coming up here. I agree with everything they've said. But I've also heard people say that maybe we could have a relaxed lease law between 6 and 10 or 11 or whatever. But there's a lot of people going to work, getting ready for work and going to work during them hours. There's kids getting ready for school and going to school during them hours. And when we have, like, say, no texting ban, it doesn't say we can text during 6 to 11, and then you can't text them then after, or speeding laws or any of that. Them laws are there for the whole time. That's all I got to say.

Thank you. Anyone else in the audience like to discuss this? Did you pull a report, Stephanie, of how many other towns have or have not done that?

Well, out of the first-class municipalities that were surveyed, there wasn't any first-class municipalities that didn't require some type of a leash. Some of them said three feet. Some of them said six feet. But all of them on this list required a leash of some sort.

Can I come back up?

My name's Gail again.

Huron has a lease law. Pier has a lease law.

Spearfish has a lease law. I mean, Rapid City has one. And not only that, in those towns, they have to be registered with the city. We don't require that one. I'm not asking for that, for our dogs to be licensed. I'm just asking for the lease law to be reinstated. And I guess I could go and get petitions started, but I don't want to because there's been enough said on our Facebook page about this lease ordinance from several followers and people. So there's pluses and negatives. Some are for it, some are against it. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in the audience?

Dean, how hard would this be to enforce, and what would you guys have to do?

Can you guys keep it down out there?

So this actually takes away the in-control portion of it. Your dog's either on the leash or it's not on the leash. The majority of the dog bites that we have, though, I don't know if this would actually help. I understand Mrs. Huseman's case. I'm familiar with it. A lot of dogs that bites that we have are dogs that get out of people's yards. So it's not so much people walking their dog. It's dogs that escape yards that we have the most problem with. But I do think it is cut dry. There's no gray area. It's either on the leash or off the leash, which makes it much easier for us to enforce.

And what would the penalty be?

Right now what we do is the first offense is a warning ticket. Second offense, barring unusual circumstances, is usually their sight into court. And it would be on a city charge.

So I went through that list. It was Sioux Falls, Rapid City, Aberdeen, Brookings, Watertown, Yankton, Huron, Spearfish, Boxelder, Pierre, Vermilion, Grandin, Harrisburg, and Teak.

All that leaves us. Okay.

You're assessing a warning based on driving around, seeing a dog off a leash, or you're assessing a warning based on an incident with a dog off a leash?

Both. Some of them are called in by, you know, people who report a dog running at large. Other ones are officers see it.

Mr. Davis, you got something to say?

You got your hand over there.

Okay. In the ordinance, it describes... declaring an animal restricted or vicious, who makes that determination or how is that accomplished?

So that is up to the original officer makes a recommendation or declares the dog based on the severity of the bite and the circumstances. Some attacks are provoked, some are not. So there's different things that go on. And then there's the Dunbar scale, which is explained in the ordinance, which deals with the severity of the bite. But those are then can be appealed to me. And then ultimately, they can be appealed to you guys who are cited into court for a judge to make the decision.

And I'd just add that the restricted vicious animal process is a separate process from what you have for your animal at large.

Would you like to come up, please?

My name is Sarah Beckstrom. I live just like a block east of the courthouse. I feel like the leash law is the bare minimum that Mitchell can do. We've had three dogs since we've lived in Mitchell. It has nothing to do with the leash law, but all three of them have been attacked. Those were improper fencing. The tile was beyond the sidewalk. So those are not related to this issue at all. But I feel like the leash law is the very start of where we go to make pet owners responsible. And I understand like our dogs, we have a fence yard. They do get out sometimes. And yeah, we should get a warning. I mean, that's our responsibility as dog owners, but we cannot walk north, east, west, south without knowing our dog was killed here. Our friend was attacked here a bit. Our friend, the Hussmans, their dog was just attacked here recently. And it's very upsetting. We have to like yank our dogs up. When a dog approaches us, and we've had many, many dogs approach us when we're walking. We're just trying to walk our dogs. We're trying to be responsible. And yeah, these dogs are, nobody's calling after them. Nobody's looking for them. Yeah, they might've gotten out of their fence, but I feel like the leash law is the bare minimum that Mitchell can do.

Thank you.

I had some people reach out to me about this issue. I was one of the people that maybe suggested the ability for a if there was a time slot that we could have dogs or animals off leash in targeting, you know, five to eight in the morning. I reached back out to the individuals that suggested that to me and they told me it's not a hill I should die on. And so. I'm not going to attempt to do that today. However, several other people reached out to me and suggested that as we look at a leash law, it's not going to fix owners who aren't taking good care of their dogs. Also, several people reached out to me about if there's anything that the city could do about defecation in land that's not theirs, I think is a polite way to say it. They don't like when animals come onto their property, leave a present, and then the owners do nothing to retrieve that present. And so if there's something that we could do about that issue as well at a future time, I realize it's tangentially adjacent to this, but I would consider that that be a part of animal control as well.

Anything else before we vote on the first reading? Okay. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. And we are adjourned.