City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the City Council meeting for Monday, July 20th, 2026. We will begin with a roll call and determination of quorum.

Lehman. Here. Maher. Here. Roberts. Here. Stroman. Here. Armstrong. Here. Sechrist. Here. Beaverdorf. Here. Tamang. Here. Evans. Here. Meyer. Here. We have a quorum.

Thank you. Next we'll have an invocation by Pastor Rob Bray, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Pastor Bray, are you here? Okay, otherwise we'll have a moment of silence. So if you're able and willing, would you please rise?

and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Next, I'll entertain a motion to adopt the agenda. Do what? Going to Councilman Tamang as soon as his- ALL RIGHT, COUNCILMAN TEMINGA, THANK YOU, COUNCILOR SHERMAN. BEFORE WE MOVE TO ADOPT THE AGENDA, COUNCILOR TEMINGA IS CHIMING IN.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, PER THE REQUEST OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, ITEMS Star Village should be moved to non-consent. Somebody could help me out with those numbers. 23, 24, and 25, please. I guess that's a motion.

All right, stand by. We're going to get the actual numbers here. Kinsley. Kinsley, can we make it 31, 32, 30? Can we add numbers, or is it 30A, 30B, 30C? Let's move to not consent. Maybe we'll do... Okay. We'll keep those numbers maybe the same, but that of order? All right. So we have a request, just so everybody knows. We have a request to move items 23, 24, and 25 from the consent calendar to the non-consent items. We will do that after item 30 on the non-consent calendar. So I'll make a note to myself here. Okay. With that, do we have a motion to adopt the agenda with that change? Motion by Maher, second by Sechrist. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Next we'll move on to general public comment. This is a time for members of the public to discuss or express concerns to the council on any issue not on the agenda. Action will not be taken at the meeting on any issue not on the agenda, except by placement on the agenda by unanimous vote of the council members present. We have a three minute time limit. We have the timer right above us here, if that helps you. And we will begin with Mitch Richter. Mitch, you're here for the non-consent items. Excuse me. Mark Millar. Followed by William Wagner.

How you doing, Mark Millar, concerned citizen? Got here early, caught some of the mayor's budget. A little more than a couple of the councilmen, but that's all right. Mayor, I think it's a good positive thing that you've reduced $25 million out of the budget. We got kind of Punched drunk on COVID money and doubled the budget in a five-year period So there should be some things that we can retract on But i'd like to talk about a little group of people And I think promises were made to them in the past and maybe they're in the new proposal for the parks. I don't know there was a Few etc etc lines in there. We don't always hear all the projects but friday I was helping the family feast feed the unsheltered. And they generally get to operate out of the band shell. And when that's in conflict, they operate off of a corner of the Civic Center. And then on Friday, that was also in conflict with the big event. And so we moved the event 100 feet up the sidewalk and got in front of some of the doors of the ice arena. And that bothered somebody from the monument. Ultimately, we were asked to leave. But what this community needs is a shelter for the volunteers to feed the unsheltered. It's my understanding that four years ago, they were promised a shelter at Denver Field. I believe that there's four different groups of people that are feeding the hungry in this community. They're asking for shelter from rain and sun. They invited me into their program a little bit, one of them, and I get to pick up garbage. I'm all right with that. We leave our spot better than it is when we got there. But my concern is these different groups donating their time their money, their food, their effort, their concern, their love for our brothers and sisters. We're always looking for a place. I can't believe that we haven't by now figured out why isn't there one place where we could do this, one central place where everybody could know every time. In the six months that I've been helping the Friday night group, we've fed in four different locations. I think in all of the money, we spend $30 million development of industrial parks and $9 million developments of parks. We don't provide public restrooms, unfortunately. But I think we could find the money in all of your contingency funds to build a shelter at Denver Field, which I believe all four groups that feed people would be happy with, so that they could get out of the weather, including the street medicine group who donates their time every time.

Thank you, Mr. Millar. Mr. Wagner, you're up next, followed by Mark Thalicker.

No prepared speech tonight, but I do want to bring a couple of concerns. One concern is the method of CUPs. Are we going to start voting on things that you told us on April 22nd that we'll start voting on, Mayor Salomon? And also, another thing is this TIF thing is just horrible, just messy, just really messy. And if someone asks to take their property out of the TIF, what's the process of that? I just don't know, I'm trying to educate myself. But I'd like to talk to one of y'all sometime, if y'all like. Daniel has my email, and we could talk about this more, thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Wagner. Next up, Mark Thalicker, followed by Patty Martinson.

Good evening. I'm sure as you can all agree, it's sure a good thing that the climate control hoax is a hoax. It's not really going on. Otherwise, it'd be really hot out there if climate... Oh, geez. Okay. But it's a hoax, so don't worry. It's going to be taken care of by God. God's going to take care of all this. So I would... Speaking of which, I would now like to join in the delusion of the mayor and many others about Christianity... And I want to speak real quickly to God. This is because I've been over to the Dove Christian Center where I was baptized in the Holy Spirit, where I spoke in tongues to the Holy Spirit. So just a second. Come, Holy Spirit. Come. Come, Holy Spirit. Come, Holy Spirit. I know they're messing up. Thank you. Thank you, Lord.

Thank you.

I wish I had more time. But since we only have three minutes, I'll have to stop there. I hate to cut God short. My original problem... goes back to the agenda and how here on the Pledge of Allegiance is not given the same respect as the invocation, saying that people don't have to stand up during the the invocation, but they don't say you don't have to stand up during the Pledge of Allegiance. But there is mention of a God. Of course, we don't know which God that is. Now, some of you will tell you that you know who that God is, because it's a personal God, a personal friend, that you know who he is. Amen. Yes. I went to school up in Leed. which is the Bellamy School Award. That happens to be who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance. So real quickly, I'm going to try to get through this. The pledge was not written by the founders. It was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy. Its original words were, I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. There was no God in it. Later, the wording was changed, so my flag became the flag of the United States of America. But the most important change came in 1954 when Congress inserted the words, under God. That did not happen some timeless moment of national consensus. It happened during the Cold War when fear ruled this country. And the people in our government wanted to have something to say against those communists, those godless communists. I can see I'm not going to get there. And so in the end, I would like you all Remember Romeo and Juliet where had me.

Time's up, sir. Next up, Patty Martinson, followed by Jerry Zacharias.

Hello, Mr. Mayor and Council. On July 10th, on the Facebook page for the Rapid City Municipal Government, there was a post about the new correctional facility here in Rapid City. And I noticed a couple of things about that post that kind of disturbed me. One, we should not be celebrating. a new correctional facility, and even more offensive was opening that new facility with razor wires, from my understanding of the picture. That seems offensive to me. And thirdly, I saw a gentleman wearing a Freedom T-shirt, I believe that was the mayor, and forgive me, but a privileged white male wearing a Freedom T-shirt at a prison facility is also not a good look. so i would advise city staff city council and the mayor just be more mindful of how you appear as these kind of public events being mindful does not cost anything unlike all the budget items i saw that were millions of dollars thank you all right next up jerry zacharias followed by angelo chiraldi i thought i was under agenda number 29

You were, sir. My apologies. You're right. We'll get back. Nope, we'll get to your item later on. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry, I've got a stack up here. I wasn't able to sort before I got up here. So Angelo Chiraldi, you're up next, sir.

I don't know if you kind of getting old coming here and wasting time. I got another photo of your president hiding behind bulletproof glass. He'll take my word for it this time. It's a sign of a country in disrepair. Things aren't as hot as maybe some are saying. See, that's the thing. When I first started coming to these meetings, I spoke about small government, limited government, and how when you start divvying out money and picking winners and losers, you're going to cause envy and disrepair. So I'm not going to go off on too much.

Actually, what I needed to do is get a little bit of information from the city finance director.

I went up to Foreman Street. I guess there was another mysterious fire that happened. Right across from the house I was going to buy in 2010, And, well, I was, well, the news actually said it was a catalytic converter. I called the station one, station two. They said to call you to get the information on just exactly what happened. I mean, I don't know. I never heard of a cat converter starting a fire. I've heard of truck chains. I've heard of other stuff, cigarette butts. But, yeah, so I don't know. Maybe I'll just contact you at your office or something so we can follow up on that. But... Oh, the soup kitchen stuff, when I was a merchant marine and I was pretty much destitute and homeless and living on the street in 2005 in San Francisco, they had a designated place, a soup kitchen, where you can go and at least get breakfast and dinner. And then some of the churches would chip in. So your best bet is probably just get a cheap place, have the city pay for a cheap place, have volunteers run the kitchen. Because those soup kitchens do actually make a difference. So yeah, I guess that's all I got for now.

Thank you. That will conclude general public comment, and we will move on to non-public hearing item one through 30, and we will open public comment for items one through 28. I have no speaker request forms for those items. Mr. Richter, I have you, but we're moving that to non-consent. So we will close the public comment and move to consent items one through 28. Would the council like to remove any items for separate consideration? Councillor Armstrong.

Thank you, the finance director asked me to remove item number 18, please.

18. All right, any other items, council? Okay, motion by Biberdorf to remove items one through 28 with a second by Roberts, with the exception of 18. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 18, approve resolution number 2026-032B, a resolution levying assessment for Downtown Business Improvement District 2026. And Councilor Armstrong, pull this for Finance Director Daniel Ainslie.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The staff is asking that you continue this for two weeks. The publication was not made in time, and so we need to reconsider it in two weeks.

Okay, we got a motion by Tamang with a second by Biberdorf to continue for two weeks. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. And for the record, Heidi, that does not include 23, 24, and 25. Just want to make sure that that's ultra clear. That takes us to the end of the consent items. We will move on to non-consent items 29 through 30, but with the exception of those previously mentioned items. And we will open public comment for those items. We will begin with Mitch Richter. Mitch, are you here? There you are.

I am, but I'm only interested in commenting if there were other comments about those items.

Roger that. OK. OK. Mitch stands by for questions for item 23, 24, 25, council. Next up, Megan Wilson. That will be followed by Tammy Hopp. This is for item 29. In fact, all of the remaining items are for item 29. Go ahead, ma'am.

Hi, my name is Megan. So I'm here talking about the accommodation ordinance. And I live in the neighborhood with the Oxford House. So I bought my house in 2025. And it's a single family residence neighborhood. And shortly after I moved in, the Oxford House moved in next to me. And as you'll hear from some of my other neighbors, the whole process has been a little bit frustrating. There's been some lack of transparency since the beginning, and this all started in November when we filed a complaint because there were more than five unrelated individuals living in the house in our neighborhood. And so when I first learned of this house, I reached out to the owner, who is a council member, and my questions were deferred. I was told maybe there would be an open house, but there was no open house, and there was a lot of unanswered questions, which has made it very difficult for me and the other neighbors to trust this whole process. So now, a few months later, the proposed solution to our original issue of more than five unrelated individuals living in a single family residence home is the reasonable accommodation ordinance that takes away community and neighborhood involvement or notification to neighbors and instead would allow a single individual to make a decision that would that would affect a whole neighborhood. And I understand the Fair Housing Act protects people with disabilities, including those in recovery, and I am not asking the city to violate this in any way. or deny them housing, but we, me and my neighbors are just asking for more transparency, um, and accountability and a plan going forward. Um, and one, we in rapid city, we have black Hills works and they, um, have been following this code and serving their, um, residents for years. And so it's my question, um, why the Oxford house needs an exemption. to the rules when the Black Hills Works has proven that they can comply with codes and also serve their population. So me and my neighbors that you'll also hear from are asking that this decision would be delayed until there is a better plan in place and questions are answered. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Ms. Hop, you're up next, followed by Jerry Zacharias.

Thank you and good evening council members and Mayor Salomon. I'm Tammy Hopp, I'm the director of philanthropy for the Black Hills Works Foundation and I am here representing Black Hills Works in support of ordinance 6726. As maybe all of you know, Black Hills Works is an organization that supports nearly 600 people with disabilities in our community with over 30 homes throughout our community. This ordinance does one specific thing. It provides for a robust administrative procedure requiring individuals with disabilities and community support providers like Black Hills Works to apply for changes, exceptions, or adjustments to existing zoning and use requirements just as is required today based on reasonable accommodation. What it would not require is a public hearing. And I want to be clear why this distinction matters. Under federal case law, when a zoning decision is made through a public hearing and that hearing draws community opposition rooted in fear or bias toward the residents involved, courts have found that these decisions, which then deny the zoning request, violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and or the Fair Housing Act. Communities in New York and Pennsylvania, for example, have faced, have been found liable and paid damages precisely because a public hearing became the forum or discriminatory opposition entered the record. This is not a hypothetical risk for rapid city. It's a, it's a documented experience of other cities just like ours. Or non 67 26 does not remove all deliberation. The director of community development must be discerning and reviewing these cases. relying on criteria that expressly relies on and is consistent with federal law. What ordinance 67 26 does not do is it required that a homeowner disclose residents disabilities at a public hearing just to get equal use of their own home at black Hills works. I see every day what equal opportunity to use and enjoy property actually looks like it's someone's front door, their own kitchen, their own bedroom, living in the neighborhood that they choose. That's not an abstraction to the people we support who are your neighbors throughout this community. We have come a long way since the passage of the ADA, and just because in the past Black Hills Works has followed the existing ordinance, it doesn't mean that it's right. Passage of Ordinance 6726 tonight means one fewer person has to stand in a public meeting and publicly disclose their disability before they're allowed to live in their own home, just like anybody else. That's the kind of progress worth continuing. Thank you for supporting Ordinance 6726.

Thank you. Mr. Zacharias, you're up next, followed by Kathy Minnick. Hopefully I got that right.

Mayor, councilpersons, I'd like to say a few words about the Teresita Hills subdivision. My name is Jerry Zacharias. My wife and I live at 523 Teresita Drive, nine houses up the hill from 323 Teresita Drive, which is apparently the home Oxford House leases that wishes to receive a conditional use permit. My wife and I don't want anyone to receive a conditional use permit in the Teresita Hills single family residential zone neighborhoods. How can I say that with conviction? For over 34 years, my family and I owned the townhouse motel across the street from the Pennington County Courthouse and Jail. We lived in the manager's quarters. Thousands of noisy cars and mostly friendly pedestrians went by the motel 24 hours a day. We understood that. It was a business. We bought a small home near Stevens High School. We never vetted the area. After school, our streets became a raceway home for students with cars. Then our crippled daughter and her autistic son came to live with us. The home was too small for the four of us. Now for the conclusion, we hired Greg Roth, a realtor, to find us a nice home. Our daughter and grandson would live in the West Rapid City home. At 73 and 71 years old respectively, we wanted a comfortable home for the remainder of our manageable years. For the next four months, Mr. Roth took us around to look at 27 homes. We looked at Hermosa, Johnson Siding, Rapid City, Box Elder, Black Hawk, and Somerset. In July of 2015, we settled on 523 Teresita Drive in Rapper City. Why? We did our homework. The home was in a single-family residential zone neighborhood, not in a flood zone, not close to a school, not close to a jail or prison, not in a high-trafficked area, close to our medical needs, and at that time, in 2015, reasonable real estate taxes. We visited the neighbors around the home and we sat in our car observing. Even in the evening, we liked everything about the home and the area. My next birthday I'll be 85 and my wife will be 83. We would like to continually live at 523 Teresita Drive under the same conditions and rules and regulations as in 2015. I'll lead this lecture by paraphrasing the words of President Ronald Reagan 40 plus years ago. He said, be fearful when you hear somebody say, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Minnick, you're up next, followed by Marquis Zacharias.

Good evening, Mayor, council members. My name is Kathy Minnick, and I am the person that originally filed the complaint to the city in November regarding the house at 323 Teresita. First, I'd like to thank the city staff for taking the time to meet with myself, my husband, and a few neighbors last week. I appreciate the opportunity to ask questions and better understand what is being proposed. I also appreciate that federal law requires a reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities. That is not what I'm here to discuss tonight. And we have not asked anybody to air their disability in public. What I'm asking you to consider is whether this ordinance amendment provides enough transparency, accountability, and consistency before you vote to approve it. Over the past eight months, I have tried to work through the city's existing process. I filed a complaint through the proper channels. I stayed in contact with city staff. I was repeatedly told I would be notified before this issue came before the city. Yet recently I learned that there were two meetings discussing this matter that occurred without my knowledge, despite requests that I be invited. I also learned that the original notice of violation did not identify the violation that I complained about. Those experiences don't give me confidence that the current process has been followed as intended. if we have already struggled to ensure consistency and transparency under the existing process why would we reduce transparency even further by removing public hearings removing notice to neighboring property owners limiting appeals and placing these decisions in the hands of a single administrative official Another concern I have is that the ordinance leaves important questions unanswered about how these decisions will actually be made. During our meeting with city staff, we asked whether there would be limitations on the number of occupants approved for home based on factors such as square footage or the number of bedrooms. We were told that we needed to be careful about what is considered a bedroom and that if a home had a room with a window or a basement room with proper egress windows, it could potentially be considered a bedroom, allowing additional occupants, including the possibility of bunk beds being used to accommodate more residents in that house. That immediately raised additional questions for me. If occupancy decisions like these are being made administratively, will the director of community development be required to consult with the fire department, building services, or other city departments to ensure all applicable safety, building, and occupancy requirements are met? Or will these decisions rest with one official alone? These are important questions that deserve answers before this authority is delegated. Compliance with federal law and an open accountable process are not mutually exclusive Rapid City can and should accomplish both.

Thank you Thank You miss Zacharias. You're up next ma'am followed by Marlo Capsa

Dear mayor and council members, my name is Markey Zacharias, and I am a resident of Rapid City. I do not live in the Teresita Heights area. I'm writing to express my deep concerns regarding ordinance 6726, which is scheduled for consideration by the city council tonight. While I fully support the city's obligation to comply with Federal Fair Housing Act and the Americas with Disability Act, I'm concerned about the lack of transparency the perceived intent behind this change, and the removal of public accountability in the proposed administrative process. As a citizen, I believe zoning decisions which directly impact the character and safety of our neighborhoods should be made through an open and consistent process. However, as currently written, this ordinance would allow significant modifications to zoning regulations such as occupancy limits and parking requirements to be decided solely by the director of community development rather than through established public hearing and conditional use permit process. If passed as written, this change means that citizens will no longer be informed of these decisions until residents notice it already occurring in their neighborhoods, removing their ability to ask questions and voice concerns. Currently, the CUP process requires neighbor notification in a public hearing, providing residents an opportunity to understand how decisions are made and ensure they are applied fairly. They can voice concerns and ask questions. This ordinance effectively strips us of that opportunity, as it contains no requirement to notify adjacent property owners or hold any public hearings. Furthermore, the ordinance only allows the applicant to appeal the decision, leaving neighbors with no formal recourse to challenge a determination. My lack of confidence in this change is rooted in recent events. On November 7, 2025, a zoning complaint was filed regarding a property intended for a sober living residence for an undetermined amount of adults in a single family residence. We later learned that this property is owned by a sitting member of the city council, Stephen Tomei. Stephen Tomei did not once file a CUP, even though he does own more than this property for this purpose. As a city council member, he is very aware that he is violating current zoning laws. Throughout that process, neighbors were assured that the same rules, specifically the requirement for a conditional use permit for more than five unrelated adults applied to everyone, including city council members. Instead of following the established public process, the city is now proposing an ordinance that would allow such requests to be handled administratively. Without a pause, In this change to address some serious concern, it poses the question, is Rapid City changing the rules to benefit one of its own officials and to allow city officials to skirt the scrutiny that every other resident must face? Is it stripping residents of the ability to voice concerns to maintain the safety and character of where they live? Currently, my answer is yes to both questions. I just ask that you simply pause until you actually have answers in a real plan.

Thank you. Next up, Marlo Capsa.

Good evening. My name is Marlo Capsa. I am the Planning Projects Division Manager for the City of Rapid City, as well as the city's ADA coordinator, which was a role that I took on shortly after coming back to the city to take on the Planning Projects Division Manager role. And I have to say that was not part of what I had planned on doing when I came back to the city. But in all honesty, it has been the best part of my second time working for the city. I've had the chance to not only work, I mean under the Title II of the ADA, we have a wide spectrum of responsibilities to folks across the abilities and disabilities spectrum. And not only has this role of ADA coordinator allowed me to work interdepartmentally across the city, I've gotten to meet so many more staff than I think I would have otherwise gotten to meet in just my planning role. But I've also gotten to meet a really fantastic new group of folks through groups like the Disability Awareness and Accessibility Committee. Ultimately, I'm up here tonight to speak in favor of the proposed ordinance. I think that throughout my career as a planner, I think where accessibility has come into focus most is through hazard mitigation planning. as well as transportation planning. But those are very specific lenses to look at accessibility through. And I think what's really stood out to me as I've moved through my own life and personal things, but also through my work is that having a disability generally I have found is not not something that we can expect as an if in our lives. It's something that we can expect as a when. And ultimately, you really, really hope that when that occurs, whether that be a physical disability, whether that be a cognitive disability, that can happen overnight. And I've known people who have begun moving through the world in a completely different way overnight. Split second has changed their entire lives. And I think that if or when that happens to you as an individual, to a family member, to a friend, you hope that not only are you protected at the federal level, but also at the local level, not having to bring forth that personal information that is between you, yourself, and potentially your healthcare provider. support network that that you don't have to air any of that personal information in front of body of government but that is ultimately why I'm here in support of this tonight I think it's a huge step forward

Thank you. Well, that would conclude our public comment period for non-consent items. And we will move on to item 29, first reading of ordinance number 6726, an ordinance amending Title 17 of the Rapp City Municipal Code to create a reasonable accommodation procedure. This item was continued from the June 15, 2026 city council meeting. Councillor Temang.

I'll be abstaining. Thank you.

Duly noted. Councillor Meyer.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If I may direct some questions to Community Development Director Fisher. I'm just hoping there were some questions around maybe timing of when this came forward. I know we've talked about the attorneys reached out to your department in 2024 because this was something we were missing. So I don't know if you could just speak to timelines and maybe how we got here. Thank you.

Director Fisher.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So we did meet with the neighborhood on Monday, and they did point out that optically this does not look good. And they're right, it doesn't. And so we went back and looked at the email chain of when we were first contacted by the city attorney's office to put us on made aware that we needed to bring forward reasonable accommodation, allowances within zoning and other practices within our building code fire code etc in alignment with the Fair Housing Act and title 2 of the ADA and that email was submitted to our current planning division manager in 24 25 was a very busy year for us we had to bring forward the vacation home ordinance and bring forward the comprehensive plan update. We started working on that after we had received the first complaint from the neighborhood, but that was in the works. Jessica Olsen, our current planning division manager, had lined the project out with her team to know who was going to work on it. Research had begun in 25, and they started laying out the format for what this document would look like as it came forward in 26.

TODD BANDUCCI- Councilor Beyer, the floor is still yours.

Long way to say I yield. Thank you so much.

All right. Next up, we'll go to Councilor Baher.

Thank you, Mayor. My concern with this ordinance is it came on so fast. And when you read the attachments, it's very complicated. But on June 15, we were told we need to do this because of the federal law. We're going to put nine unrelated adults in one home in a neighborhood. We were told, well, they can put up to nine if they have three bedrooms, they put three beds in each bedroom, they could have nine people. That just doesn't seem right. We spent over a year on the short-term rental ordinance, And we put very strict guidelines or rules about what that short-term rental could be. And that had to do with occupancy. They had to be state licensed and inspected by the state. And now all of a sudden we're saying, eh, we're just gonna let community development decide if it's nine people, it's okay to be in that house. And it was also said on the 15th that there's no reason that the neighbors should have to be notified because they're just gonna get all upset. Well, they have their life on the line with that mortgage and that house and they have little kids and they're concerned. So I think there should be some effort to relieve or address those concerns of the neighbors and to say we don't need a CUP, maybe not, gosh what's wrong with notifying the neighbors that you're going to have nine unrelated adults living down the street so i will not support this i would recommend that it be delayed until it can be better explained to the council and more you know more concerns can be heard thank you next up counselor evans

Well, Kevin knows I don't agree with him very often, but ditto, because tonight already we've had two items come up. One has been spoken about, the other not, where we think there's consensus among the neighbors, and then we find out at the last second there is none. And here's another. Instance where this is happening. So I think we just don't need to jump the gun once you pass it. It's there It's hard to get rid of so I'm gonna say we can put the hold on this and Delay it until we actually have more discussion about it.

So I think I've got to also not support it tonight Okay, next up councillor Roberts Thank you very much Vicki, can I ask you just a couple of questions if you don't mind me so What is your criteria going to be as far as the number of people in the houses? And by federal law, where are your hands tied there?

That's actually a very good question. So these reasonable accommodations would only qualify for those that do meet the Federal Fair Housing Act. So this is a group of individuals that is using that residence As a resident, that's it. They're not doing other services there. They're not doing commercial activity there. They're just living there. And in those instances, similar to a family with X number of children, we as government cannot regulate how many people make up that family once they've been deemed appropriate for a family. However, what we have learned, and Kinsley's done a great job looking at case law to see where we can push back, where we can set parameters. When we get a reasonable accommodation request, there is an application that has to be filled out. They have to identify what they're using it for, what the qualifying disability is, what is the operation within that residence to ensure that it's only being used as a residence. And when we get those applications, we may see that there's parts of what they want to do that don't align with what a regular family would do. And so while we could approve that reasonable accommodation for the residential use, we could also put stipulations on it that say, you can't have a commercial office in this building, in this residence, where you're interviewing to see whether or not someone can actually be the next client in this home. In addition, based on the individuals that will be living there, we can ask them, how many cars do you think these individuals will have? There's a parking requirement for a single family residence. So based on that occupancy, if we feel like there would be a shortage of parking, we could require them to provide additional on-site parking, which most residential lots aren't designed to do, but that would give us legal cause to deny it if they did need that parking and they could not provide it and it was more than what a typical family would use in a residential area. The one great thing about this regulation is that while we can approve it with stipulations, If they breach any of the conditions of approval, it is automatically revoked. There's no notice, it's revoked, and they start over.

One more question, if you don't mind. So as far as life safety. Fire suppression, is there anything required at square footage? Is there a number of people? I mean, if you have nine people in there and, you know, because I know that there's been times in the past where we have required fire suppression and we've required a few other things. I'm just wondering what could or couldn't be required.

That's also a great question. So while this is administrative, and there are many applications that are reviewed administratively and approved by the community development director, similarly by the public works director and so on, whenever we get those, they are routed up to the development review team. That is the police department, fire department, public works, building services, code enforcement, the list goes on, but it also very importantly includes the city attorney's office. Those comments are then gathered. All of those departments within the city provide comment about whether or not it aligns with their rules and regulations. Those comments are brought together and then there is decision criteria that must be followed. These cannot be random. There must be consistency within the approval and denial of these. Then the community development director, whether that's me today or someone else tomorrow, needs to remain consistent and follow the recommendation of the review team, also known as DIRT. May I offer, that currently I sign off on developer's agreements. This is a large document that ties down a developer and a contractor when construction plans are approved for subdivision of property. It's a huge task. And so in doing that, I did reach out and say, if we're gonna bring that forward, I want the city engineer to have to sign with me because there's some areas of this is not my area of expertise. I would offer up a friendly amendment in this case that if we're going to do this, we require the community development and also the deputy city attorney, so that it is required that they vet that, we stay consistent, we meet the requirements of the federal regulations that we're trying to align with, and that we work together to create those stipulations of approval. Because in meeting with the neighbors, I can appreciate that concern, and we need to acknowledge that while we do want to not govern what makes up a family, we have to be reasonable in application to ensure that the impact to the neighborhood is as minimal as possible.

Thank you, Vicki. You had one slip up in there. You said if we do this. There's no if about this. This is something that we have to do. We have to align with Federal Fair Housing and HUD. I do a lot of training every year on that to where it's, yeah, it is so complicated and it is something that if we don't put, if we don't do this as a city, we put ourselves at risk for huge lawsuits. And I do believe the optics were absolutely terrible on this for Councilor Temang. But again, sometimes that's what the city needs to push things forward to get things done. So whether or not The right thing was done on his end. I won't comment on that, but this needs to get done. Do I think we need to vote on it tonight? Maybe not because Vicki said, you know, she'd make a friendly amendment. Maybe we need to go back and look at some other things in it. But one way or another, this is going to get done soon. Thank you.

Next up, Councillor Stroman.

Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to make a motion to continue this for a month. And if I can get a second, retain the floor. All right.

The motion given to Stroman with a second by Roberts to continue for one month to the second city council meeting in August, then. I'd forward yours, sir.

May I interrogate the community development director? She's on the hot seat. Just at softball, I think you said that if there's a violation of one of these stipulations that it's an automatic suspension of rights. Don't they have a year to, once they get a CEP isn't it there for a year and then it's reviewed after a year?

It's not a conditional use permit. It's administrative approval. And a part of what's before you tonight is that while we can grant those administratively, the language in the ordinance says that if stipulations of approval are not being met, the reasonable accommodation request is hereby revoked. So it's an automatic revocation.

Thank you for that clarification. What I'm hearing is that this is not ready tonight. I think the citizens raised some very valid concerns. I think Mr. Roberts raised a valid concern. Mr. Evans, as per usual, did. And Mr. Maher, I agree with him. I know he has some experience with trying to oversee a house with more than nine unrelated adults when we lived in a fraternity house. It's not an easy thing to do. And so I think this is just not ready right now.

Thank you for that touch of humor. Councillor Evans, you're back in the queue, sir.

I do have one more question. I remember several years ago, we had a discussion here concerning unrelated people living in a house. In fact, I think it was on the mayor's street and it was about two blocks from your house, Mr. Stroman. And I thought we had an ordinance on the books that said more than five unrelated people in a house is not allowed. Now, how does this particular ordinance that we have, is that in conflict with these federal rules? And I guess I'm all confused by this. I'm not exactly sure how this affects the other. Could you maybe expand upon that, Ms. Fisher?

We're going to go back to Community Development Director Vicki Fisher for that clear explanation.

That's exactly why we're here tonight. There is a definition of family in the zoning ordinance that says that a family can be of any size, but if you're unrelated by blood or marriage, then you cannot be more than five. and so what the federal fair housing act is saying is if you've got a group of individuals that want to live as a family unrelated by blood or marriage and they're more than five they have to go to zoning board of adjustment and get a variance to the definition of family and then they have to identify where that why they need that many in one home. That's the whole reason why we are here. And what the Federal Fair Housing Act is saying is this group is protected as a family. And so no more than a mom and dad that chooses to have five to 10 children and some of their adult kids are continuing to live in the home. Sometimes there's three generations living in a home, but they're all related by blood or marriage. That we don't regulate and we don't even think about regulating. When there is a group, that is deemed a family and all they are doing is residing in the residence, they are protected for that very reason so they don't have to get the variance. May I suggest that while we're in this month, while we're working on adding some language that would require additional review and approval by the city attorney's office, we incorporate language into the ordinance too, similar to what we have done for other administrative reviews that says, upon receipt, we have so many days, it has to get routed out to all of these different city and sometimes even state agencies for review, and then we incorporate all of those comments so that if there is a fire concern, or if there is an ingress, egress building Granted, it's what I have done in all administrative reviews and approval, but again, I promise you, I won't work here forever. And so we wanna make sure that whoever's going forward looks at that in the full spectrum, so it's not just their decision criteria they're looking at, it's all of the adopted rules and regulations across the city. As an example, there could be one that the access creates a safety issue for the community. And Public Works might say, no, we can't do that because of this. That would give us grounds to deny it until they came back with a different plan.

Okay. So the motion on the floor is to move this to the second city council meeting in August by direction to the staff, get a work group together to figure this out with as much as we can communicate with the neighboring areas, the better without being in violation of any law. So, uh we'll get the relevant parties together and work on that so all in favor of the continuance say aye any opposed motion carries takes this item 30 excuse me first reading of ordinance number 6734 an ordinance amending section 17.06 of the rap city municipal code A request by City of Rapid City for GCC Dakota Inc. for rezoning request from SDCL 11-4-30 to Low Density Residential District 1 for property generally described as being located southwest of the intersection of Sturgis Road and St. Martins Drive. Motion by Roberts with a second by Layman to approve. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Now we're going to item 23 on the agenda. And I will read that item in. Item 23, authorize Mayor and Finance Director to sign an agreement with Ridgeline Construction LLC for demolition of structures in the Star Village area in an amount not to exceed $29,733. Got a motion by Sechrist with a second by Biberdorf to approve. Councilor Tomei.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I know that Mitch Richter was in the audience, and I'm wondering if we could potentially entertain the statements that he has made regarding this, if he's willing and the chair is willing.

I think he says he's here for questions. He doesn't have a statement unless you have a question for him. That's what he stated.

OK. I do have some comments on these items, and you might want to start my clock. And the reason why is because after everything that this community has endured from this management company, I think a few things just need to get on the record. First off, we were contacted by Mr. Richter as someone who does special projects for Zadig management. And he represented himself that way. And if you look publicly, the South Dakota Secretary of State, they keep a registry and he is in fact an active private lobbyist per my investigation. And if you go further and you look at a separate public lobbying database, Lobby Links lists Zadig management among his clients. So this is something that's worth noting, that while Zadig management has accumulated about half a million dollars in delinquent utility obligations, including $344,000 at the Star Village, by the way, the entire time while the residents are living there with repeated reports of unsafe and deteriorating conditions, during the same time period, Zadig management appears to have maintained professional lobbying or government relations representation. So it was misrepresented from my perspective, and I think it's the same kind of tactic we've seen before. I find it deeply revealing. I think it's worth saying publicly that this company has repeatedly failed to meet its basic obligations to its residents and to this community. Yet it has found the resources to retain professional advocacy when accountability finally arrives. And accountability is a funny thing. Chief and I talk about accountability all the time. I often point out, and I'm criticized for it, but I often point out that accountability has to be matched to capacity. You can't hold certain people accountable that don't have the capacity Unless there is a serious public danger. Well, Zadig management has demonstrated tremendous amounts of capacity. It has the capacity to retain professional advocates. It has the capacity to repeatedly reassure the city that its violations will be corrected only for those assurances to go unfulfilled. It has the capacity to advertise, manage its public image, use social media to tell a story. It has the capacity to protect its own interests, but what it has repeatedly failed to do is to use that same capacity to meet its most basic obligations to residents and to this community. And in my view, when capacity is this clear, accountability should be equally high. Now, I support the decisions, the recommendations from our legal department. But in my view, Zadig management does not need more leniency. It needs the maximum consequences that are honorable and legally allowed. And I am not persuaded by any last-minute appeal for additional time, cost reductions, or renewed trust. It has had ample opportunity to act. Our citizens deserve better, and they deserve more from us to stay on top of this matter. And I will not support any leniency to the best of my ability. I yield. Thank you. Councillor Meyer.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, plus one to all of that. And I wanted to add a couple notes. November 13 was the original notice date that Zadig was given to remove these structures. They missed it. The second date they were given was February 20. They missed that. And all of a sudden, when these items are on the agenda, They're able to make it happen. So I I think that aligns with a lot of what councillor Tamang said And just wanted to give a couple more Comments about what's going on in Star Village Beyond what I have here I think it's just good to put on record that These are people who have things like sewage backing up in their yards and you've got families sharing you've got people on different blocks and they're sharing water in one house because they don't have running water and I find that incredibly disturbing and And I want to thank city staff for providing me some of this data here in 2025 and the first half of 2026 Star Village experienced the highest number of violent crimes They were only edged out in the second half of 2026 to another property owned by Sadiq in 2025 105 violent crimes were committed at Star Village. 59 were committed at another one of their properties. And for comparison, the third highest had, I think it was 45 violent crimes. And most of them are under 30. So I just think that we need to do something. And I just wanted to make sure all of that was on record. Thank you. I yield.

Thank you. I've got a couple of staff members I want to chime in. First, Community Development Director Vicki Fisher, followed by Police Chief Don Hedrick.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I believe, Council, I put you on notice on Friday that a representative from Zadig had contacted our office letting us know that they would be submitting demolition permits to remove the structures, believing it would be a cost saving for the property owner. The intent then was to have them completed all of the permits in place in hand before the council meeting tonight. To date, we have 18 demolition permits that they have submitted. 10 have not yet been submitted. So we are still working through that process. It is our recommendation that you still move these contracts forward just in case these structures do not get removed by August 9th.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to Police Chief Don Hedrick.

Thank you. I just wanted to mention we do have a few of our experts here in the house if you wanted to call upon them. Jamie Kirsch has done a lot of our outreach work. She's here, as well as our data analyst, Mark Eisenbron. But I just have to mention that we have just Tremendous amounts of problems on these properties. Problems we don't have elsewhere. We have to essentially station officers 24-7 on properties owned by Tzik, and we don't have to do that elsewhere. Doesn't occur. It doesn't happen. and just really encourage you to take action. We appreciate your support. When we have to station police officers on their properties, it pulls away from the other resources that we are asked to commit and work on. Every time we station somebody there, it pulls away from traffic enforcement. It pulls away from our downtown work that we're doing. It pulls away from other hot spots, and it's not fair to our community, and it's not fair to our city. As it's already been stated, we have a lot of work to do in our community, and I've just appreciated the support and all the questions that you guys have been asking, and if there's anything else we can do to support you, just let me know.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions for the council? Mr. Richter's here, if you had any questions. Mr. Richter, I'm giving you another opportunity if you wanted to respond to any of that. Okay, just want to make sure I'm fair to you. All right, otherwise, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Item 24, authorized mayor and finance director to sign an agreement with MMI LLC for the demolition of structures in the Star Village area in the amount not to exceed $45,849. Motion by Biberdorf, for the second by Sechrist. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Real quick before we move on, Director Fischer, the 10 permits you got today, did that need to be noted in any sort of motion? Or is that just subtracted from that? I'm sorry.

Great question, Mr. Mayor. No, that was just for information purposes. These contracts or if those demo permits never existed.

Thank you. Just clearing that up in my head. Item 25, authorize mayor and finance director to sign an agreement with HCLLC for the demolition of structures in the Star Village area in the amount not to exceed $49,800.00. Motion by Sechrist with a second by Layman to approve. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. So that will take us to the end of the non-consent items. And we will move on to public hearing items 31 through 38 and open the public hearing for items 31 through 38. I have no speaker request forms for those items. So we will close the public hearing and move on to consent public hearing items 31 and 32. Motion by Meyer with a second by Roberts to approve items 31 and 32. All in favor? Any opposed? Oh, Councillor Temang. Sorry, everybody.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just, since it's kind of dying, I'll move to approve if I can get a second.

We got the motion. We were about to go to the hole for 31 and 32. Okay. But before we get everybody's vote, did you want to chime in?

I did.

Okay. So the motion's still on the floor, but we didn't.

Okay.

They didn't get it out.

Okay. I just wanted to make a comment on this. This local business has a tremendously good track record regarding their use and regarding the way they've conducted themselves and I think I want to shout that out because this particular item, as has been noted, had some concerns around it. And my understanding is that some of those concerns continue. And so at least for my opinion, not only do I want this body to fully support it, But any future investigations that could be taken at a state level, I hope that for the record, I hope that this body's full endorsement of this establishment, these owners, and this particular license, I hope that takes into account for any future investigations that may be undertaken. I yield.

All right, well, we'll go back to the vote we were just all about to say. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. We are at the end of the consent public hearing calendar and we will move on to non-public hearing item 33 through 38. And item 33, second reading of ordinance number 6728, An ordinance amending section 17.06 of the Rapid City Municipal Code, a request by AVID for Engineering Inc. for Elevate Rapid City for rezoning requests from General Commercial District to Light Industrial District for property generally described as being located north of Mall Drive, east of Haynes Avenue, and west of the future extension of Maple Avenue. Motion by Beberdorf, with a second by Meyer. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 34, second reading of ordinance number 6729, an ordinance amending section 17.06 of the Rapid City Municipal Code. A request by AVID 4 Engineering Inc. for Elevate Rapid City for a rezone request from General Agricultural District to Light Industrial District for property generally described as being located north of Mall Drive, east of Haynes Avenue, and west of future extension of Maple Avenue. And this is the recommendations to approve in conjunction with a plan development designation. Motion by Layman with a second by Sechrest to approve that motion. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 35, second reading of ordinance number 6730, an ordinance amending section 17.06 of the Rapid City Municipal Code, a request by AVID IV Engineering Inc. for Elevate Rapid City for rezoning request for a medium density residential district to light industrial district for property generally described as being located north of Mall Drive, east of Haynes Avenue, and west of the future extension of Maple Avenue. Motion by Sechrist, with a second by Meyer. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 36, second reading of ordinance number 6731, an ordinance amending section 17.06 of the Rapid City Municipal Code, a request by AVID for Engineering Inc. for Elevate Rapid City for rezoning request from General Agricultural District to Office Commercial District for property generally described as being located north of Mall Drive, east of Haynes Avenue, and west of the future extension of Maple Avenue. Motion by Sechrest with a second by Meyer. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 37, second reading of ordinance number 6732, an ordinance amending section 17.06 of the Rapid City Municipal Code, a request by AVID IV Engineering Inc. for Elevate Rapid City for rezoning requests from medium density residential district to office commercial district for property generally described as being located north of Mall Drive, east of Haynes Avenue, and west of the future extension of Maple Avenue. Motion by Sechrest with a second by Maher. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 38, second reading and recommendation of ordinance number 6723, an ordinance amending section 17.08.020 and 17.10.020 of the Rapp City Municipal Code permitted principle and accessory uses and structures. Motion by Biberdorf, second by Sechrest to approve. All in favor? Any opposed? One opposed? One opposed. Roberts. Otherwise, item 38 passes. Just had to sneak that in there. Because of the chickens. It's all about the chickens. All right. With that, we'll move to item 39. Bill list for Main Street Square and or Visit Rapids. Oops, actually, I'm going to go to a finance director. What am I reading this in for, finance director? That's your job. Yeah, it's the bill list. Get you to chime in. My apologies.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The bills for Main Street Square as well as Visit Rapid City total $55,702.07.

Motion by Roberts with a second by Sechrist. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries with one abstention by Meyer.

Item 40, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The remaining bills total $10,403,235.35.

Motion by Meyer with a second by Sechrist to approve. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Do we have a motion to adjourn? Motion by Tamang with a second by Meyer to adjourn. All in favor? Any opposed? We're adjourned. Thanks everyone.