City Council - Regular Meeting

Call this meeting in order. Start with the Pledge of Allegiance.

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

Remain standing. Next is invocation by United Church of Christ. Not here. We'll move on to roll call.

Sabers. Here. Goldhammer.

Here.

Davis. Here. McArdle. Here. Barrington. Here. Schlemgen. Greenway. Here. Smith. Here.

Okay, next, approval of consent agenda items. Also, while we're here, number 13 has been removed by the applicant, just so everyone knows, if they didn't see that email. 13 on the regular agenda.

I approve.

minister mccardle second mr goldhammer further discussion anyone in the audience like to discuss this okay roll call davis your turn

McArdle? Aye. Barrington? Aye. Greenway? Aye. Smith?

Aye.

Sabres? Aye. Goldhammer? Aye.

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

I'd like to start out a little bit. Lakeview's had a very busy couple weeks. A member of GALS, our own local pro, Eric Keeb, and his partner, Floyd Ramada-Madison, won the tournament. So it's nice to see Eric get out there because they don't play much anymore. And then this past weekend, the South Dakota Golf Association had another major. They had their match play. And in the final championship round, three out of the four were from Mitchell. That's how good golf is in Mitchell right now. Brandon Sigmund at 51 years old, playing against college kids, won the match play. And in the girls, Allison Meyerank beat Maddie Childs in the championship in extra holes. So really, really, really good outing showing for Mitchell. And then also this Wednesday starts the 12 Days of the South Dakota State Amateur Tournament. There will be 32 teams in town, hopefully a lot of spectators, and that goes 12 days straight, finishing up on the 16th. Thank you.

I just wanted to take a second to congratulate Ken Schlemgen. The reason he's not with us tonight is he's being inducted into the Cooperative Hall of Fame for South Dakota for his work with his co-op over the last, well, we'll just say a few years for his age, so congratulations to him.

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

So moved.

Mr. Barrington, seconded by Mr. Goldhammer. All those in favor of the motion, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Hearing an action on application for a Ritual Hosing Conditional Use Permit. Ritual Hosing is applied for a Conditional Use Permit for attendance 5C Family Residential Daycare located at 421 East 15th Avenue, legally described as shown on the agenda. Mr. Jennings.

Mr. Mayor and Council, notices were sent out to neighbors, signs posted, published in the paper. There is one letter returned in favor and one phone call from a neighbor that was in favor of it. The applicant Used to have a daycare at this location, but it ceased for more than six months, so they're reapplying for the application again. Planning Commission recommended approval with the three conditions, and they have also passed the fire inspection already. I can answer any questions that you have.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Second by Mr. Savers. Second by Mr. Branson. Further discussion? Anyone in the audience like to discuss this? All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Hearing an action on application for Ann Johns Conditional Use Permit. Ann Johns has applied for Conditional Use Permit to operate a 10-5E3 family residential daycare located at 1108 Sunnyside Court, legally described as shown on the agenda. Mr. Jenegas.

Mr. Mayor and Council, notices were sent out to neighbors, signs posted, published in the paper. There was one letter returned in favor. The Planning Commission motioned to recommend approval unanimously with the three conditions. They have passed the fire inspection, and this person is actually moving from Mount Vernon, where they have a daycare, to Mitchell to have a daycare. I can't 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. Aye. Motion carries. Hearing and action on application of Amy Thompson Conditional Use Permit. Amy Thompson has applied for a Conditional Use Permit for 10-5-C-3 Family Residential Daycare located at 922 University Boulevard. Legally described as shown in the agenda. Mr. Genegas.

Mr. Mayor and Council, notices are sent out to neighbors. Signs posted, published in the paper. Planning Commission motion to approve with the three conditions approved unanimously. There were five letters returned in favor. They have passed the fire inspection already. I can answer any questions that you have.

Motion by Mr. McArdle. Second by Mr. Davis. Further discussion? Anyone in the audience like to discuss this? All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Reconvene the City Council to entertain a motion for the Board of Adjustment to adjourn the City Council to reconvene in regular session. So moved. Motion by Mr. Goldhammer. Second by Mr. Barrington. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Second reading on Ordinance O-2026-09, Amending City Code, Section 6-1-1, regarding Animals at Large, Mr. Johnson.

Mayor, I'd like to table this. I had some people come up on both sides, and they were doing some work on it, and I'd like to table it for one more meeting.

Is that a motion?

I motion to table it, yes.

Okay, we have a motion to table. Seconded by Mr. Barrington. Further discussion?

And plus, I think it's important to have the whole council here because, yeah, Marty, you were going to say that too.

Yes, go ahead.

And obviously, it was a 4-4 vote the last time. So it's good for everybody to hear all the testimony and then we can vote. So I think that was a good move, Dan. Thank you.

Should we have people come up now or wait until next time? What are your guys' opinions on that?

And so Ken can do it.

If Ken's not here to hear it, I think it's important for all of us to hear it because it was such a close vote last time.

I do wonder, though, if as a part of this, one of the things that several people have reached out to me about was adding some kind of e-caller option or variant to this. I don't know if there's a way to work on that language. Would that be such a substantial change that we would have to potentially bring that back an additional time?

Well, I guess I would say that the e-caller is part of the current ordinance. So instead of taking out both verbal command and e-caller, you could take out just the verbal command. But yeah, if you were making that change at the next meeting, that would likely be a substantial change that required another second reading after that.

Do we have anyone else? Why don't you come up? It doesn't look like there's a whole lot of people in the audience for this.

Hi, my name is Barb Gronseth.

Can you just bring the microphone just a little closer for the folks at home? Thank you.

Barb Gronseth, and I just have a question. If you do propose the new leash collar instead of verbal command, what is the length that the leash can be extended to?

In the proposed ordinance, it's six feet.

And what is it right now?

There is no length at this time.

Okay. So it will be, if it goes into effect, six feet.

Right. If they make the change and require the leash, then it would be the six feet.

Okay. But the verbal command would go away. It would have to be on shock power. Is that correct?

Well, the way that it's proposed right now, it would be leash only.

Okay. But you were talking about maybe adding just the shock collar or the collar or whatever. Yeah.

At this point, that decision has not been made. It has not been discussed.

Okay.

I can tell you that cities have different lengths. So that's something that we could consider if you're or whoever else would want maybe a different length other than six feet that we can discuss that also.

At the next meeting. Okay. Just wondering. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else out there before we vote on the table? Okay. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries table till next meeting. We'll skip 11 since we tabled it. Number 12, action reward bid for Mitchell Boulevard Sidewalk Project 2026-4A.

Mr. Schrader. Mr. Mayor, Council, bids were opened on July 28th in City Hall Council Chambers at 1.30. Two bids were received with a low bid from Top Grade Concrete LLC for a total cost of $268,026.70. The bid tab is attached for detailed information. City of Mitchell staff completed the design and bidding for the project City forces will be completing removals of trees, trimming brushes and trees, removals and install of water and storm sewer items, and asphalt patching. The asphalt servicing will be included in our yearly asphalt bid. Project is an assessment project, and below our estimate, staff recommends awarding bid schedule A to top grade concrete. The city's responsibility for the portion of this project is estimated at $112,037.18. For your information, the estimate for sidewalk price was $9. The low bid came in at $7. Thank you. I can answer any questions you have.

Motion by Mr. Smith. Second. Second by Mr. Greenway. Further discussion? Anyone in the audience like to discuss the sidewalk project? Okay, let's do a roll call on this one.

Barrington.

Aye.

Greenway.

Aye.

Smith.

Aye.

Sabers.

Aye.

Goldhammer.

Aye.

Davis.

Aye.

McArdle. Aye. Five to two.

Okay, motion carries. We are skipping number 13. It has been withdrawn by the applicant. Number 14, Action to Approve Agreement A-2026-48, Assignment Agreement for Tax Increment District Number 46. Mr. Johnson. All right.

We've considered one of these or a very similar agreement to this in the past. This one relates to Tax Increment District Number 46, which was the legacy point. And what basically what this would allow the developer to do is as part of their financing package with their bank. This allows the bank to step into the role of the developer should there be some kind of default on the existing developer's part. So it doesn't create any new rights for the bank or anything. It just allows them to take over if there was some issue. And I think with that, we can open it up to any questions. Thank you.

Move to approve.

Motion by Mr. Goldhamer. 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?

Nay.

Motion carries. Action to approve Resolution R-2026-49, Establishing a Policy for Alley Improvements. Mr. Schrader.

Mr. Mayor, Council. Council requested that staff bring an alley improvement policy that would outline how the alley improvement fund would be used. as well as how alley improvements would be handled in the future. We put together a policy based on some feedback we received, and with that, expected that the City Council have discussion on the policy and finalize the policy at tonight's meeting. The policy is drafted to state that alleys within the Central Business District, which includes Main Street from Railroad to 8th Avenue, that alleys should be converted to concrete surfacing by 2029. The city will continue to maintain and replace these alleys indefinitely. It's not specifically stated in here how those are being paid for, but it was my intent that they would be 100% assessed. Now, council would have the right to change that, how you feel, but that was my intention for how it was written. General policy for alleys outside of the central business district. Newer improved alleys will be constructed as gravel or concrete. Alleys may be improved to concrete surfacing if petitioned and approved by city council as a special assessment. If the alley improvement account in the landfill fund is in service and has a sufficient balance, then the city will cost share concrete alley improvements by participating. At 25% of the total cost of the public improvement, again, that percentage can be adjusted by council tonight if you wish. If there are not sufficient funds in the landfill fund alley account, then the City may either not complete the alley improvement or participate at a lower percentage. If the alley improvement account in the landfill fund is abandoned, then the City will no longer cost share the alley improvement. The City will not cost share in improvements requested on private property. Alleys will be maintained by the City utilizing standard and industry accepted maintenance and maintenance schedules. At the end of an improved alley's useful life, the alley will return to gravel surfacing unless the adjoining property owners petition the council to improve the alley to concrete surfacing through the assessment process at the cost share listed above. With that, I'll open it up to any discussion or comments or revisions.

I do think either way, no matter what council decides to do with the Central Business District, I think we should state what we're doing in the policy just so it's clear and it's not misunderstood. I read it wrong when Joe was gone.

Joe's probably not going to like this, but with us making it mandatory on the Central Business District as we got laid out here, I think the city should at least pay for something because... We're forcing it to have concrete where the other is elective. And it's to our advantage because, again, we utilize those alleys periodically for transportation for the public. So that's where my thought, and maybe you guys will agree or disagree, and I don't even have a percentage, but I just think that the city should participate given the fact that we're making it mandatory. Okay.

Joe, what's the ballpark price to do an alley from one block to the other?

Anywhere from $60,000 to $70,000, depending how long or what other improvements are incorporated.

My thought on the central business district would be that they pay the full assessment one time, but rather be removed from future obligations. We would treat the central business district like a street. and that after they're assessed the one time that the city would take ownership of those alleys as a part of our continued policy as we want those alleys to be improved. So they'd be charged full price one time and then those improvements would be at the city's expense in the future.

I agree with Jeff on this. I think we should use our money for that because if you're doing streets, over 50% have to sign up for it. We could have 100% of these people against us. I drove them all day. There's a few of them that are pavement that need replacing. Yeah. Anyway, the percentage, I don't know, but I think the city should be paying our share. We use it. Our downtown businesses use it. Totally different than a residential alley, I think.

I would agree with that, too. I think the city should be responsible for a portion of those... those costs associated with those alleys.

And maybe as a trade-off from what Tim is proposing is we know everything has a life cycle. And Joe, you were saying it could be 40 or 30, 40, maybe even 50 years possibly. And we've got it. the language included in there with the useful life, which nobody can put it because obviously the land underneath of it is all different and it responds differently over the number of years. But in my mind is, again, is the fact that that should be, and if there's anything new 40 years down the road, that should be assessed also. So that would be a little bit of trade-off in what you were saying, Tim, that it's not a... 150 years from now, we're sitting there working under the same board, which would change, obviously. But given the fact that at least they know that at some point it will be their expense after the years has completed their life cycle. I'm just going to throw that out as a possible discussion item, too.

I think with the dollar amount that's listed up there, the 25%, just as like an off-the-cuff number, And based on the number of blocks that we're even listening to a second time around here, there would be money available to help out with the city street ones or the main street ones anyway. So it would be nice to throw a little bit of that money with six blocks being cut from the list immediately. If that carries forward with the rest of the alleyways that we improve, obviously it's cutting down on the amount of money being spent pretty significantly from the get-go. I guess while we have the opportunity on these Main Street ones to have some funds in that account, it might be beneficial to help some of those business owners.

I'm in favor of helping the business owners also because we need the business owners on Main Street to keep Main Street alive. So I'd be in favor of helping out the business owners.

So assessing the... Main Street area, 7525.

I'd be okay with 7525.

I just brought these into the same ones from below. Does that make sense?

How much is in that account again right now?

Like 360? Yeah, I mean 320 at the end of the year. I think at the end, once we hit 27, then we would have around $400,000.

If we average $20,000 in each alley, I mean, we'll still have money left over.

I think there's $340,000 in there right now.

So do you know what changes you're making over there?

Is everybody in favor of $75,000, $25,000?

We'll let her finish typing this so we can all know what we're looking at.

So really we just added these bullets to match what's in the general policy for alleys below.

And then did I hear that you wanted to cost share the replacement as well or not?

We don't cost share on streets, correct? Correct. Yeah. And streets are oil, so what's the life expectancy of a street? 25 years?

With our maintenance, we usually can get 30 to 40. That's the reason I asked that.

Pretty good chance I'm not going to be here on the cost sharing deal. No.

the reason i ask is if we are going to cost share we just need to delete the second item so the question is if the if we're going to cost share we would probably delete that second line because it's going to be an ongoing assessment then

Could you explain the cost share? So you're saying that because we're assisting them or I guess helping out towards the assessment this first go around, when it needs to be replaced, we're going to ask that we assess them again. Is that what is happening?

That's the way. So initially it was set up saying that if it was completed, it would be the city's responsibility to continually maintain and replace But I thought I heard in the conversation that one of you had said that you were interested in cost sharing after when it's time to be replaced for the second time. I'm just trying to clarify so we can make this accurate.

I could go along with that. We do have a fund for it. To me, that fund's going to get bigger after this initial downtown is done because I can't imagine a lot of the alleys, one pavement and three-fourths of it, paying for three-fourths of it. So I think there'll be money there, a lot of money there down the road to do it. So I'm okay with that.

Future councils might want to increase that 25% to encourage it.

Mm-hmm.

I guess that's another good point. Council can amend this policy at any time. It's just really to give staff direction. So we're treating this consistently moving forward.

Just to clarify, is this just downtown or is this for if someone has a gravel now and they want to go to cement?

Is this 7525 as well? I believe the way it's listed right now is the only difference is that We're requiring downtown to convert by 2029. And then we say that alleys in the downtown district shall always be concrete, whereas in the residential or anywhere else outside of the central business district wants, if someone approves an assessment, the only way it goes at the end of its life, the only way it doesn't go back to gravel is if they request an assessment to put it back to concrete.

And then at that time, it's a 75-25 based on this? Correct. Okay.

If they petition with the landlord. Correct.

I just know we have one of those instances coming up right after this, so I want to just make sure that.

I know because we had the question last time, what's in there or is nothing changed for the folks that have the question about the alleyway that was already asphalt that they paid for? No.

So I think this is going to be a 75-25 same thing. Okay.

Yeah. And, Joel, again, for future is the definition of who's the one that's going to identify the useful life. I think it should be the city that makes that determination. Yeah.

In my opinion, it would be public works.

I don't know if that needs to be included in there, Justin, or not.

I think it's our policy. Okay.

I'll move to approve it the way it's written right now up there.

You got all your adjustments made? Okay. I'll second that. Just making sure everyone's watching. I was watching.

I'll second.

Yeah, we got one. Okay. Motion by McArdle. Second by Goldhammer.

And I just think that this is a good policy. And as Joel pointed out to me, it's a guideline. So if there's certain situations that you think should be different, then you can always look at it. But at least we're giving the citizens of Mitchell a policy to start with. And then they know when they walk out and visit with their neighbors of saying, hey, a quarter of it's already paid for by the city. And then we benefit as a result of not having to send Joe out with his maintainer. And there's cost associated with that, too. The only other thing I thought of, and I can't remember if I even included that when I emailed you, Joe, was do we have anywhere in there on the gravel that we would like to maintain at least once a year or maybe twice with the gravel ones? Or does that, we don't want to touch that? I don't know if that's part of this.

So there's, we have it listed that there will be maintained Utilizing standard and industry-accepted maintenance and schedules. Just because we know there's alleys that we're in more than twice a year, and we know there's alleys that we're in once every two years just because of the situation and how they handle rainfall and snow and what have you.

And we are looking at some upgraded equipment, doing different gravel things that are new and make things easier and better. Okay. Any more questions? Anyone in the audience like to discuss this?

Josh Peterson. Before you vote on it, I would ask a consideration under the alley outside of the central district as well. I mean, if you look at the 300 block east first, that's one block away. You know, if it's reached its end life, We're spending about $70,000 as homeowners to pave that alley. Once it's reached the end of its life, I would like you to consider maybe doing that 75-25 as well. If a developer comes in and develops an area of town and they pay for curb and gutter and and street and everything like that, then that is turned over to the city. So that's the city's responsibility. So really you're telling us if we live outside of the business district, that once we paid for it and it takes us 10 years to pay for it, maybe so it lasts 20 years at a minimum, we've got 10 years of good concrete that we've paid for having it without paying for it, essentially to where it may turn into gravel again. Like I said, it just, it, it, asking for a consideration. I mean, we've already, we're paying this money to pave it or to concrete it. If you would consider that 7025, since we've already made that initial investment.

Isn't that the way it's written? Correct. Yeah. So next time, if you want to do it again, every time it gets improved, it's the 7525.

It's always there at the bottom though. It just says the alley will return to unless the adjoining property owners petition for the council to improve the alley to a concrete surface.

Correct.

At the cost share listed above.

Sounds great. Thank you.

Anyone else? Can you state your name?

My name is Don Walker, 400 block of East 7th. You mentioned useful life of 25, 30 years, possibly. 19 years, I think our alley's been there. It's in terrible shape. The city has not maintained it. So we really appreciate the fact that the 25-75, but since the alley's never been maintained, it has been patched over the years, but it's been falling apart because of patches. I'm curious what you might think of that.

I think the policy is 75-25.

But you, I already paid for the alley. We already paid us to improve it, but the city never maintained it. You guys just mentioned you're supposed to maintain things, right? You never did. So I'm paying for it twice virtually in 20 years. And I'm not saying I don't want to pay for the improvement to go from asphalt to concrete. That's great. But I think there should be something in consideration that the city never maintained my alley. Just thoughts of that. I mean, you're saying it should have lasted 30 years, barely lasted 15. It's been a disarray for at least five or more. So we'll think about that. I'd like to know where you guys stand. I mean, if you want to turn it back to that gravel, that's great. I really think that's a stupid idea. It's right next to the PAC Center. You're talking about the alleys on Main being used by the public. I think my alley is used by the public from the PAC Center quite a bit. So...

Let's do your alley when it's your alley's turn. And for now, we'll just work on the policy.

You're talking about policy. Right.

Policy, policy.

You guys going to 2027 by the time you turn all alleys to concrete? 29. 29 for downtown. What are you going to do between now and 2029 when there's big old potholes in those alleys?

We will maintain them according to industry standard is what this policy says.

Why didn't you maintain my alley in the last 19 years?

Can't answer that.

Can't answer that. Sorry. Good question. I'm just asking.

That's kind of where I'm at.

I get it. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience like to discuss this? Okay, all those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Continuing public hearing on construction of alleys as follows. The 300 block of East 1st Avenue. Do we want to do these separate? Let's do them separate. Let's do the 300 block of East 1st Avenue.

Mr. Schrader. All right, so with that, we will open the hearing for the 300 block of East 1st Avenue, which is north of East 1st Avenue. Notices were sent out, all property owners affected. The proposed assessment is split into four different segments, base course, concrete paving, accessories, engineering fees, and miscellaneous expenses. Property owners can discuss with council the segments they are in favor of to council, and council will discuss and can approve multiple segments as part of the resolution. If the property owners are against the resolution, they can petition against the resolution after the hearing. Costs associated with the attached estimates include construction of Curb and gutter, concrete surfacing, concrete approaches, sidewalk, engineering fees, and miscellaneous expenses. Once completed, the payment plan would be for a period of 10 years at 8% interest using the special assessment process. With that, we'll open it up to anyone from the crowd that would like to discuss the project.

So if I remember right, we asked for people to bring some petitions last time and get signatures. Is there anyone in the audience that brought any signatures for the 300 block of East 1st Avenue? Go ahead.

Josh Peterson, we provided all the signatures to the public works director, so he has those.

I do. Perfect.

He was able to tally what percentage would.

What was the percentage?

We had everyone. There was everyone except for one residence. Is that correct?

I believe so. One or two residences. But yeah, we had way more than that.

Way more than the majority? Yes. Okay. Well, then I would be open for a motion. I'll make that motion, Mayor. Mr. Smith, motions? Second by Mr. Goldhammer.

Excuse me. We will close the public hearing. We will close the public hearing.

Okay.

Sorry, if there's no one else that would like to speak.

Sorry. Okay, we'll close the public hearing and move into the resolution for 300 block of East 1st Ave. All right.

Is anyone here for the 400 block of East 7th? How did your petition turn out on there, Joe? Mayor. So we're skipping to 17. Yeah.

17. Okay.

I'm just making sure we're not. Yep. Okay. So we got a motion and a second on 17 for just the first part. 17. Okay. Further discussion on that one. Would anyone in the audience like to discuss this part? Okay. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Back to 16, number two, the 400 block of East 7th Avenue. Public hearing, Mr. Schrader.

Yes, so now we'll open the public hearing for the 400 block of East 7th, north of East 7th Ave. I won't repeat myself since I don't believe there's anyone new in the crowd. And with that, we'll open it up to any public comment.

What was your petition numbers like on this one?

On this one, I don't believe we received any back, whether against or for.

Intermediate and last.

Can you come up to the podium, please?

There's a huge crowd online. I represented the 400 block last council, and we have at least 80% in favor as long as we discuss the future, which was how much percentage the city was going to pay, and if the city is willing to talk about the improvements that never did get or the city not maintaining, right, and what they might do about that. So we do have a majority. I'm representing probably most of the majority, so.

Okay, any questions for this fellow?

And the majority is okay with 25%? No. It's not.

We all are not real happy about 19 years of not maintaining our alley, and now you want us to pay for it twice.

Well, let's do the ordinance of 75-25, but I just think the city should go down and maintain the potholes and whatever's wrong with the alley. Now, if the alley needs some asphalt or whatever, I think we should probably...

It'll cost you more to replace the potholes than it would be to probably put it to concrete.

Right now, if you would visually go look at the alley, it identifies more with gravel than it does asphalt. I can't speak to the maintenance, but I can speak to asphalt versus concrete. The alley is flat. We've talked about asphalt is not the greatest material for alleys because they are flat. It's hard to get water to run off of them. That's why asphalt streets have curb and gutter. that are on the edges with them because we get the water to run off the street and into the curb. That's why the policy we just approved does not allow asphalt alleys because they are just so difficult to maintain. The type of weather they take on is not great for asphalt surfacing. Concrete is fine. It's designed to take those low grades, minimum slopes, get that water away so it doesn't deteriorate at the rate that asphalt would be deteriorated.

So obviously moving away from asphalt, I think we've got two options here. Don, you're probably not going to like possibly, but we'll just say, Joe, will you go back to figure out what it would cost to take this alley back to gravel? So then we know at least what that cost is. And then we know we've got the 75-25, and then we can decide in fact of maybe what it would be taken back to our two options. And then we can have a discussion about maintenance too. But the other thing we do need is actually having written. I can trust you, but we're going to need something in writing to make for sure that we've got the residents. And they're not going to sign off, but if they're interested, then we're going to need to maybe come up with a plan first and then have them sign off. But we won't be able to approve it until we actually have the majority of the That's fine.

Muth owns 50%. I own another 10%. That's enough. And I work for Muth, and Muth's given me permission to speak on their behalf.

Okay. So just put that in writing, and that would be perfect. Not a problem.

No, I appreciate it.

It's just like you say. Okay, so I have a question. Maybe I'll regret this, but what number did you have in mind for you to ask?

Gosh, another 25%. We pay 50%, and the city pays 50%. We move forward.

And now these guys have something to consider.

What's it cost to put it back to gravel? I don't know. What would it have cost to actually put it in as asphalt? Just like the person to the east of me that gets 25% right off the bat. What's that cost? What is the cost of asphalt if you would just put it in asphalt right now? I know it's not an option, but that's what it is now. So if we were going to just put it back to where it was, 15 years ago, what would it cost? Just throw some numbers out there. I think there's 90%, maybe even 100% if the city's willing to kick in for the maintenance part on this alley. So if you guys are willing to work with us, we're definitely working. We'd like to work with you guys. And again, it's close to the PAC Center. People park in our alley. They use our alley.

So what I feel like I heard is you guys want maybe some things in writing. Yeah. And then we'll table this again. No problem. Does that sound good for everyone? I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. You get signatures. We'll collect some more information.

I bet I can get 90%.

Joe, you've not come across anything of a written obligation when this was put in place. More likely it was just verbal. And I don't know if you remember that or not, Don.

Well, you know, in the 19 years that it has been patched, the city has patched it. Yeah. And unfortunately, when they did patch it, they did a terrible job because it created water dams, which in turn actually eroded it even worse than it was before.

Yeah. So, yeah. Anyway. Okay. Would it be too soon for next meeting, Joe? I'd be fine with that. What do you think, Mayor?

I think you guys are one. Everyone seems to be in favor of just tabling it, so we gather more information and signatures and everything else. I'll move to tabling. We're going to close the public hearing after. You got anything else?

Yeah, just make sure that nobody else is here to speak to it. That's what I was just going to do. Close the hearing. Is there anyone else here?

There's one other gentleman who lives on the block. Are you okay? Yeah.

You sure?

You'll come next time?

Anyone else in the audience? Okay. Then we will close the public hearing. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you. And then we'll move forward to the number 17 and we got a motion. I'll still move the table. Move the table. Second by Mr. Davis. Okay. All those in favor of tabling. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Mayor and Council, Resolution R2026-50 would amend the 2026 Compensation Plan. The City currently has a vacancy due to a resignation of the Assistant Corn Palace Director. In discussing the vacancy with the Department, it was decided to fill the vacancy as Corn Palace Box Office Concession Supervisor position versus the Assistant Director. This is how the position was prior to it being elevated to the assistant director about two years ago. Due to this change, a position will be filled at a wage grade 16 versus the wage grade 19 and will result in a budget savings of approximately $11,000. It will still be a salaried position that's exempt from the FLSA overtime requirements. And staff recommends approval of the resolution amending the compensation plan. I can answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you.

Move to approve.

Mr. McArdle. I'll second. Second by Mr. Greenway. 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 R-2026-51, plot as shown on the agenda. Mr. Denneges.

Mr. Mayor and Council, Planning Commission, motion to approve all present voted A with one abstention. This is just outside city limits, but it's the city's zoning jurisdiction and zoned in urban development. It meets the criteria for urban development for a plot. The county will have to hear this at their September meetings because it's within three miles of city limits. I can answer any questions that you have.

Thank you. Mr. Goldhammer. 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. Action to approve resolution R-206-52, plot as shown on the agenda. Mr. Jenegas.

Mr. Mayor and Council, Planning Commission recommended approval of this unanimously. This is outside city limits again, but it's within city zoning jurisdiction, its own highway business. Currently, their land is described by measurements and they're purchasing some land to the south to add on to their existing parcel. There is an existing ingress-egress up to West Havens Avenue. Discussion was whether it's a private maintenance for that location. EMS had no issues with it as long as it's still maintained privately. I can answer any questions that you have. Excuse me, County will also have to hear this after a September meeting. Thank you.

Move to approve.

Motion by Mr. Goldhammer. Second by Mr. Davis. Further discussion? Anyone in the audience like to discuss this? All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Action to approve Resolution R-2026-53, as shown on the agenda. Mr. Genegas.

Mr. Mayor and Council, planning commission motion to approve this all presentable today with one abstention. This is outside the ETJ, but within three miles of city limits. Therefore, it is county zoning jurisdiction. They'll hear this at their September meeting. the parcel on the left side of it is the dwelling. The parcel on the right side is where the ingress and egress easement is at. The people owning the dwelling are purchasing the ingress-egress portion of it, so they won't have an easement in the future. I can't answer any questions that you have.

Move to approve. Second by Mr. McArdle.

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 R226-54, Platt, is shown in the agenda. Mr. Jenegas.

Mr. Mayor and Council, Planning Commission, motion to approve this unanimously. This is over on 1st and Foster area. Um, they're beginning the existing, uh, 6 slots that are there, um, putting it into 1 track. Um, so that way they can obtain building permits. It's owned our 4 currently. I mean, our 4, you can go up to 24 units, um, for dwellings. So they'll be able to move forward with the proposed 6 houses that will be going on this and then replant. Um, once they have a established for this area to create new setbacks, um, that will fit within their housing. Um, the. Alley does go from a 16-foot to a 20-foot with this replat as well. I can answer any questions that you have.

Thank you. 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. Action to approve resolution R2026-55, plat is shown in the agenda. Mr. Jenegas.

Mr. Mayor and Council, Planning Commission, motion to approve this. It was unanimously approved. This is out Wild Oak area. It's zoned R4. This fits the zoning requirements for platting in R4. It follows their master plan. I can answer any questions that you have. Thank you.

Motion by Mr. Goldhammer. Second. Second by Mr. Greenway. 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 R-2026-56, a resolution declaring support for and addition of the 2026 Davidson County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Mr. Schroeder.

Yep, Mr. Mayor, Council, this is the second time that this has come in front of you. This is for adopting the plan. The Davidson County Hazard Mitigation Plan was prepared by the Planning and Development District 3. This is an update from 2021, and the 2021 plan was approved by FEMA at that time. The plan is updated every five years. The purpose of the plan is to prevent or reduce losses to people and property that may result from future hazardous events in Davidson County. Within that plan, there are projects identified. A few of them are listed. within the staff report. Key points, each community must list at least one action or project for each of the five hazards, which are winter storms, summer storm, flooding, drought, and wildfire. They must include a project in the plan that will give you more credibility if you apply for FEMA mitigation funds for the project. And the attached resolution will adopt a plan and show the city's continued support for the plan, and the city will take action to ensure the plan is implemented successfully. Staff does recommend city council approval, and I can answer any questions you have.

Thank you.

I'll move to approve.

Motion by Mr. Goldhammer. Second. Second by Mr. McArdle.

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. Designating $2.5 million from general fund reserve into future capital projects. Ms. Elwin.

Mayor and council, during the 2026 supplemental budget discussions and hearings, we talked about designating some additional funds from unobligated general fund reserves into our future capital projects fund. Right now, I had actually back then even we were discussing designating $2.5 million for those future capital projects. Doing so would bring your unobligated reserve fund balance down to 35 percent. That's in line with what your current policy is to be between 30 and 35 percent. Council can then in the future on designate those funds at any time to be used if you had cash flow issues or if you needed to use it to apply towards projects in the 2027 budget as well. I can answer any questions right now. Like I said on the agenda, I just have it listed as future capital projects, but council can change that to whatever need that you would like. So I can answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

And maybe just for new council members, a little more explanation. I should have thought this too. It's not really taking anything out of our general fund reserves. It's just taking a part of our reserves and saying we're going to set this aside so that when we go to do a capital project, there's funding for those capital projects and it wouldn't necessarily have to come out of that year's revenue. So if that helps maybe explain it a little bit better too.

We approve. I think it's a good idea to put it in. In case something comes up that we, you know, I don't think we need to earmark it right now. I think it's a good idea to just put it out there for whatever we want to use it for.

Second. Second by Sievers. Further discussion?

Just for a point of history, for example, in the past, that Future Capital Projects Fund is what council used to have cash to apply towards the lake project. So when you see the lake project in the future, we applied $4 million towards, actually over $4 million towards that project. That came from savings over years, saving up for the project this way.

Everybody, what this will take us up to, Stephanie?

Yes, please. That'll bring that balance to, I think I have this here. Hold on. $4,591,801. Okay. Further questions? Anyone in the audience like to discuss this?

Okay, all those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Discussion on request from Davis County to include the Mitchell Police Department in the planning of the Regional Law Enforcement Center. Who wants to start? You look real excited out in the audience. Why don't you come up here?

This is the good news. Yeah, John Flaggett, Davidson County Commission. This is the good news about our jail systems. As most all of you know, it's a very, very expensive process. Very, very elongated. So many more things happening than they were even 10 years ago. So we're just asking for the group to get together and work on it together. We all have vested interest in this. The expenses on jail systems are extraordinary. So we need to figure out the best way to do it. We want to have your participation and we've got participation from others. So we'd like to have as many.

What kind of participation are you looking for?

What's going to be on the front end is going to be a lot of visioning, and we're working through that. We've got a good team put together to do a lot of the front end pieces, but we need to have, especially your police, any police function that would be good for us. Also, we've got location. We've got some thoughts there, how we can do that and work together.

Lots of things. Are you aware of some cities and counties kind of working together throughout the state? Yes. Yes. We're not going to. It's been all the way up and down the line now.

OK, so good and good information. It gives us a lot of great stuff that's local. So it's close to our bones. We're excited about it. So it'll still be a county jail. Sylvia County Jail.

Yep. So what, how do you want the city? I mean, that's what I'm, we don't know what the size, the location, the cost. Yeah, we don't know. We're just jumping in and say, yeah, we want to jump in with that.

Yeah, we're wanting to have your friendship, your work together. And we also have to have that synergy of talking back and forth, what works best for both sides. We've already started that casually, but we would like to just get it together and say, this affects all of us. We need to do it.

And I think we've sat in on quite a few of the jail meetings so far. And, you know, Sheriff Hart and Chief Knifling have sat in and talked on a lot of those things. Yeah, I think we've been great friends so far, huh? Yes. All right, good.

So, Mayor, if I may, the reason why this is on the agenda is staff has been asked several times if the city is interested in locating our police department where the new jail is going to be located.

Yes.

At this point, I just don't know how staff can say yes or no to that without council giving some kind of direction because there's going to be costs associated with that. And quite frankly, I don't know if that's going to be your priority right now. So that's why we're asking this information to come to you.

I would certainly be open to gathering more information. And then, Mayor, you can, if you need, you know, to put a committee together or ask for volunteers or however you want to do it. But certainly is not going to hurt to gather more information and bring it back.

You bet. Thank you. And you guys have done a need study? We've done a need study. We have a team on right now to start doing some preliminary conversation. But we need to bring everybody together to make that work. And I was at the need study. You were at the need study. Yes.

So my understanding is right now you're looking at doing a schematic design. And the question is, should that design include our police department in 9-1-1?

You bet. So some of the discussions we had is right now we have one dispatch center. Do we want to have two dispatch centers? Do we want to have a nicer dispatch center? Do we want the county and city having the dispatch center in the same place and then have a secondary one where the current one is? Do we want to have joint dispatch? Interrogation rooms or investigation rooms, I should say, joint training facilities, joint offices. What other things, Chief, do you think would be good to share?

Well, there's a lot of areas in which I think we could pool our resources and have some joint use spaces and save money. The conference rooms, break rooms, briefing rooms, locker rooms. The big one is you brought up the 911 center. Right now, we have no real backup center, I guess, short of, you know, if something would happen to our dispatch center, there is no good backup center without having to go up to Huron or something.

And how many counties is that, sir?

Right now, so we just recently went from six counties up to eight counties.

And I don't want people to panic because the state has a built-in backup system to operate in the event that something happens.

Yes, correct. I should clarify. If something would happen and our dispatch center was not working, the state has got it so our calls would all be routed to another dispatch center who would turn around and start dispatching for us. to solve the problem in the short term. But right now our dispatch center is growing. We just recently took on two counties in the last year. There are other counties that are approaching us. And right now we are really gonna struggle if we add any more counties without adding more dispatch stations.

So, Chief, you obviously see the value of at least moving forward and gathering more information. And obviously, you'd be part of it.

Yeah. And I've been part of it. Me and Stephanie's been there and Jordan's been there. The mayor, sorry. We have been involved in some of these conversations. It's just right now, without knowing the council's directions, it's hard to say, oh, yeah, I think that we should do that. We should find that, you know. But it is definitely a benefit, I think, to the community and something that we need to look at seriously.

Thank you for the thoughts. Randy Ryder is here too. And so if later on you want to do some conversation, that's where we're at right now. We need to get together and see what the needs are and what we can do.

And back to Dean's comments about the actual console stations, we can't actually add another one in our existing dispatch center. So as those needs grow, we just don't have the physical space for it.

I know it's difficult to know, obviously, your needs right now and what kind of space you would need. But being as you guys are building, it's fairly new and quite nice right now. Do you see an ability to fill up the empty space of the areas you vacate or were those areas in the current building kind of be vacant upon your departure from that?

I guess that's something that, you know, we'd have to discuss with other city department heads. But, you know, I see there would be the room to move some offices or to expand to do it. I wouldn't think the building would sit empty, no.

Mr. Ryder, would you like to add anything? The crowd's softened up now, so it'll be easy.

Come up to the... He's the better looking one, so he can do that.

Having not heard anything that was said, I could give you the whole thing that maybe would totally be just repetitive.

He did a great job. Can you just say your name for all the folks at home?

Yeah, well, it's Randy from the Davidson County Commission. But guys, you know, there was a time roughly 30 years ago when the county and the city had plans drawn up for a joint law enforcement center. And at that time, they couldn't get it done. Davidson County needs a new jail, and it's not just the size. Our facility was opened and intended to give us 15 years. We're at 30. So we need a bigger facility with more beds, but we can't just add on to the existing building because it needs to be replaced. Our facility has served its useful life. The time has come, and we need to identify our needs for the replacement. That's the county. We've started pursuing this endeavor. You may have read about it, heard about it, or talked about it. We're in the very early stages of this project. One of the things we have immediately found is that some counties and cities have collaborated to create a law enforcement center that can serve both city and county and save construction money in the process. There are also potential efficiency savings for both parties. I'm not making that up. I mean, the sheriff and chief dean work together very well. We're very lucky. Those groups get along and they back each other up very well. But they talk about the potentials and the savings. So we've had some discussion about that. At the county level, we see and feel regionalization with our lower populated county neighbors. We are important to these neighbors. and they're important to us. Our regional jail is just one example. We are the primary jail with four other counties, and we have contracts with nine other counties to readily house their inmates. We're also open to the state for Department of Corrections or for the federal inmates for U.S. Marshals should that need or happen. We have appropriated money for a needs assessment that has been completed. and to start the process of hiring an architect and a construction manager. So as we draw up our plans, our question is, would you like us to look at the option of city offices or services as part of this project? Our initial consideration has been the Mitchell Police Department and the regional dispatch. Chief Dean speaks real softly when they talk about space constraints and some of that. It's tight there. They do quite a job. It would be awful. We have started our tour to go look at other jails, some of the new ones that have been constructed, and ask those counties about their facilities. But when you go into... a new modern dispatch that has the space, that has what they need, has a little bit of ability to grow as need grows because our regionalization grows. So can they get one more? Maybe they can, but there's already probably three that are looking that want to would be interested in joining our 911. We talk as county commissioners with other commissioners in our regional meetings, and they ask us about that because several are handling their own. And as they find out costs and efficiencies, it can work better to have people who are super at the job handling it instead of as a secondary intention. We've found that like with the veteran services program, people who do it full time, they're servicing veterans in this region at a higher level than what's been done with some of our neighbors. So, anyways. We have completed the needs construction. We are in the process, the needs assessment. We've completed that and we have started the process of hiring an architect and a construction manager. So as we draw up our plans, our question is, would you like us to look at that option with you guys joining? We are looking to give Chief Knippling and Stephanie the go ahead to determine the space because they have participated with us in a couple meetings. We invited them. They were there. that they might need later on to decide to go ahead with the project. You would not be saying, yes, you are committed to actually doing the whole process. It would just give us the OK to figure out what you're doing. So as we hire architects, we say, here's our plan. Here's our plan if the city of Mitchell said, hey, we need we want to do this and here's what we want to put in here, that we think it works well together and the benefits of collaborating way outweigh anything else. So while it might not be a need at this moment, As well, and it was Chief Kniepling, he said, yeah, but if three years from now, we're going, this is what we need to do this. Oh, shoot. I wish we'd have jumped in and been a part of your process because we both could have benefited. That's it. Any questions? So, yeah, that's it. We've asked the mayor and Stephanie and the chief along the way and said, hey, do you guys want to continue to have this conversation? And they're like, well, yeah, why wouldn't we? We'll continue to look. And at some point when we get into and we get to the point where we can have numbers and facts and considerations and locations. Then then other decisions can be made or not made. So at this point, it's just, hey, can we include you in part of the considerations?

How many of you guys have been to our jail? Not like voluntarily, I should say. It's pretty it's pretty interesting. So when I did I did a ride along with one of the police officers and we took someone there and it's just the. their little control room board is, I'll never forget when you walk into their control room, if you've ever been in there, there's like a chair spot, and you can see where the chair goes from here to here to here, and it's just worn down like five layers. You guys know what I'm talking about. So it's just interesting to see what the condition's like. If we do facility tours, we have extra time, maybe we can go to jail at the end.

I think I would be open to the discussion and figuring out what our needs are for current and future police in the city of Mitchell.

And I think part of that on our part would be answering your question, Mr. Greenway. How does the existing space get used if the police department isn't in there anymore? That's part of the due diligence the city would have to do.

Does anyone have any opposition to allowing staff to continue to cooperate? Okay.

All right.

Sounds like we got the thumbs up then. All right. Thank you guys for that. Next, motion to enter an executive session according to SDCL 1-1-1, personnel SDCL 1-25-2, consulting with legal counsel SDCL 1919-502, lawyer, client communications. So moved. Motion by Mr. Goldhammer. Second. Second by Mr. Sabre. Sorry, Mr. McArdle. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. There will be no action after executive session.