City Council - Regular Meeting

We have that was also our translator. So they did a very good job. He made sure that I learned a lot about Google Translate, and we could get the pictures and actually translate some of the stuff here for them. And we'll take a moment and let the students say their names. And so they're actually families. We sent them a link so they can

be viewing here at home because it's actually morning there for them.

Hello, my name is Mika Morishima. I'm the chaperone from Sanico. Thank you for welcoming our students. Now the students will introduce themselves.

Hello. My name is Mao Ikeda. Nice to meet you.

Sanami, please.

Hello. I'm Sanami Imi. Nice to meet you.

Riko, please. Hello. My name is Riko. Nice to meet you. Ayaka, please.

Hello, I'm Ayaka Fukuda. Nice to meet you. Keitaro, please.

Hi, Mayor, and hi, everyone in Lapid City. I'm Keitaro Horii. I'm from Nikko. I'm glad to see everyone. It is an honor to come to the proud country and Lapis City where we build friendly relations.

Thank you.

Nice to meet you. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, welcome to Rapid City, Neco City. We're so glad that you're here. Would you please join me up here as I have a gift I would like to give to each of you?

Thank you.

So have you stand right back here. So we want to get pictures.

Yes.

So we have an interpreter. So I hope that you can interpret what I'm going to share. So one of the traditions that we have here at City Hall is we have something called a challenge coin. And this is a challenge coin that we give for when we see something remarkable. And I'm going to give this to each of our guests here today as a token of our appreciation and a token of our friendship between Rapid City and Neco City. And I exchange it with a handshake. And I'll start with you, sir, since you can understand me. But we exchange it with a handshake. So I put it in my hand and then we shake hands.

Thank you very much for coming here today. At Rapid City, I have this coin, a traditional token. I would like to thank you for your continued development and give it to all of you. I will shake hands with each of you and give you this coin, so please accept it.

Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

Yes. And this is gift from Nico.

Can I open it now?

Be careful. First of all.

Oh, wow. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you again.

Thank you all again. Welcome to Rapid City.

Yes.

Welcome. This is beautiful. Thank you.

Is that for city students as well?

All right, look at her purse. Her purse.

All right, ready? I'm going to get it.

Okay, perfect. What do you got here? Don't call us. You guys can look at it. That's funny. You said number 10.

Well, that was nice, huh? Well, we will move on to general public comment. This is a time for the members of the public to express or discuss 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. As a reminder, it's a three-minute time limit, and we will begin with Lee Strubinger.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name's Lee Struebinger. I'm with the John T. Vukovic Foundation. The foundation partners with about 50 nonprofits in the Rapid City area. And for years, the foundation has heard that transportation is a barrier here in Rapid City. We've heard that from most of the nonprofits that we work with. So we embarked to really understand what exactly that means, and it's been summarized in a report that we recently put out called It's Literally Limiting. You should have a copy of it in your mailbox, or I can also get it to you digitally as well. We basically came to understand that transportation insecurity is an employment and economic barrier here. And in a city with 1.7% unemployment rate, it seems like there are folks in this community who want to work but can't because they can't. either get to work or they can't get home from work, and that's like one of those barriers that we heard. So what does it look like? As the cost of owning a vehicle is getting more and more expensive, we think that more and more people are gonna rely on the rapid transit system to get to and from where they're trying to go. And so what that, unfortunately, some of the folks with insecure transportation They're going to be working in jobs, sort of service sector jobs and retail jobs that might necessarily fall within the window of rapid transit system, which is generally 6 to 6 p.m. And so it goes without saying that the rapid transit system is a vital community resource and it's crucial for those who rely on it. But transportation barriers are also about more than public transit. I just want to say that JTVF is committed to keeping this conversation going about lifting those transportation barriers. I've met with some council members about this already. I'm scheduled to meet with others, and I'd love to meet with all of you to have this conversation about the report, about ideas on how to lift those barriers, et cetera. And that's what I got. So thank you so much.

Next up is Mark Thalicker.

I've been here a few times in the past, and I guess I have never actually had an ask for the council. So I'd like to put that before you today. And that would be that there be a change made to the format of the agenda page, where the invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance are down here. And right behind the invocation, it says, you're welcome to participate, but not required. I think it only makes sense that the same courtesy be given with the Pledge of Allegiance, since the pledge does mention a god in there, even though there aren't too many people that are willing to say which god that is. But J&J, I'm sure, up here know which god they think it is. So I would like you to think about changing that on that agenda. I think that's only a very simple but the right thing to do. Pledge was not written by the founders. It was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy. Its original wording was, 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 under God in the original Pledge of Allegiance. Later, the wording was changed to, my flag so that 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 in some timeless moment of national consciousness. It happened during the Cold War in an atmosphere shaped by fear of communism, ideological conformity, and the pressure to define America in opposition to the officially atheistic Soviet Union. Under God was added not because it had always been there, not because the founders wrote it, because in the era of our government wanted to draw a religious line between us and them. That history matters, because when a city council opens with a pledge as though its current words are eternal civic tradition, it leaves out the fact that the words many people treat as sacred were actually a political addition made in a climate of fear. And when government uses that vision in a formal setting, it can change the message, whether intended or not, that the full belonging is tied not just to citizenship, but to a religious phrase inserted by the state. I'm not asking anyone to stop loving this country. I'm asking us to be honest about our symbols and careful with government rituals. If we value liberty and justice for all, then we should remember that the strongest part of the pledge may be the oldest part. One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. No gods. And just in case you're wondering, they've got a list of over 18,000 gods that the humans have believed in over the last couple of millennia.

Next up, William Wagner.

Hello, Mayor, Council. How y'all doing? The cause of corporate favoritism. I stand here today protected by South Dakota's Uniform Public Expression Protection Act. This law was passed so everyday citizens can look their local government in the eye and speak the truth without fear of being silenced by legal threats. And the truth is exactly what the people of Rapid City need to hear. For too long, the administration has hidden behind complicated legal jargon to cover up its true priorities. They look us in the face and say they are for the people, but their actual financial decisions prove they prioritize corporations. Look no further than the July 20th meeting, item number 38 in the concurrent 2027 budget presentation, While everyday taxpayers struggle, this council continuously votes to amend, expand, and approve massive tax increment financing districts, including the millions tied to our infrastructure corridors to subsidize corporate partners. They're shifting money in disguise to lay down public infrastructure for corporate entities, like the massive data center coming to town. This flies directly in the face of South Dakota's new data center bill of rights, specifically section three. The law explicitly mandates that data center operators must pay for their own infrastructure costs so that regular utility rate payers and taxpayers aren't left holding the bag. Yet here we are watching public funding mechanisms get twisted to benefit multi-million dollar tech developments. Because of this corporate favoritism, the citizens of Rapid City are paying the physical price. Look at the Chapel Lane Bridge right by Canyon Lake. When a hole opened up in the concrete deck, forcing weight limits on a bridge built in 1974, what did the city do? They waited on a state grant handout. And when South Dakota rejected Rapid City for the bridge improvement grant program, the project was put on hold. The city's official excuse is that we simply lack the financial sources to fix it. Why do we lack the sources? Why must a vital neighborhood bridge sit crumbling with weight restrictions while the city finds the resources to advance corporate developments? Corporate projects come first, public safety comes last. Under the protection of South Dakota law, we see past the jargon, we see past the slick accounting, and we demand that our public money be spent on public safety, our bridges, and our people. Thank you for your time.

Next up, Mark Millar.

I actually was asked to speak on a specific agenda. Oh, I'm sorry, Mark.

I'm sorry, Mark. Yeah, I'll get you on that specific agenda item. My apologies. James Bialata. Excuse me, Mr. Bialata, is this a general public comment or item 36?

I have one of each.

One of each? Okay. Go ahead.

So my name is James Bialata. I am yet again here before Rapid City, and we have history. You guys have absolutely lost your mind. And the good thing is, everybody I serve, or mention I'm serving in the city government or their employees seems to get terminated. It's fantastic. I put Joanne Dean on a witness list, bam, he's fired. I put Destiny Cash from Main Street Square after complaining to legal and the development board, bam, she's fired. She's got a spina. Daniel, I wish you the best. You were just served before the meeting. to produce documents that the city doesn't want to disclose during the working hours. You guys are required by law to keep the books open to the public. And I have multiple videos from people all over this city being denied public records during normal business hours. Have you guys lost what little of your minds you have left? Your own city attorney is going to the board saying you're breaking the law. Please stop. You're not listening. You're not getting it. Your cops are just as bad. You're going to love this. One of your sergeants on the force more than 15 years actually testified in court he didn't know an alley or a sidewalk is a public right of way. Are you kidding me? And he's instructing officers? You've got to cut him loose. That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard, and Sergeant Hunt is today's moron of the day. If you don't know how to identify what a city sidewalk and a city alleyway, that it's a public thoroughfare, I'm sorry, you no longer deserve a badge. And here you are, pledging to the flag for justice for all. Do you know your cops are turning away people filing criminal reports? Sergeant Alexander, I had to file a report on him for turning people away, filing criminal reports, including felonies. You guys are disgusting. How dare you? Equal justice for all, huh? Except when it's you breaking the law. I don't know how many times your city attorneys need to tell you to stop going to public meetings that are private, secret, off the record, that are described as social events with booze. Mayor Solomon, I've noticed you gained a little weight. Tell me you're not eating and drinking alcohol on the public's dime at non-disclosed secret meetings because your attorney says you did. You guys have had it. The feds are coming down.

All right, that will conclude general public comment. We will move on to non-public hearing items two through 31 and open public comment for items two through 22. I have no speaker request forms for those items, so we will close the public comment and move on to consent items two through 22. Would the council like to remove any items for separate consideration? Councilor Tomei.

11 through 13, please.

11 through 13?

Yes, sir.

OK, any other items? Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion to approve items 2 through 22 with the exception of 11, 12, and 13. Second. Second. Motion by Armstrong with a second by Secris. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 11, approved request by TUI Design Group for a variance to waive the requirement to install sidewalk along North Elkvale Road as required by 16.16.050 of the Rapp City Municipal Code. Mr. Tumeng, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If you're all right with it, I was wondering if Public Works might be able to explain 11 through 13 regarding their thought process on the qualifications for the variance of these.

OK. For that, we'll go to Public Works Director Mike Tice.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. President. Item number 11, we looked at that location, and there are no other sidewalks on the west side of Catron Boulevard. And again, it's basically a highway right away, so not a great location for a sidewalk. And as usual, we look at all of these individual case by case in this particular case. um there was not a good location for the sidewalk not in just not a conducive location or an environment for a sidewalk on on that one item number 12 again this is a bit of a a rural lot and no sidewalks in the area this is an added lot that was put out there just not a good location for it and there are no other sidewalks anywhere in the vicinity of this location either And then item number 13, this one was also a bit of a rural lot. This is out in the interstate area, heavy industrial area, and no other sidewalks in that area either, and so it would not connect to anything. So again, we decided that there was no reason to place a sidewalk out here to go to nothing else, connect to nothing else.

Thank you, sir. I know I'm kind of bouncing between 11 through 13, so you can correct me if I'm getting out of order here, but on these three items, are there any structural costs that would be considered impractical to construct a sidewalk? I personally don't think sidewalk leading to nowhere is, I think that's kind of a weak argument because You start granting these, and then they don't lead to anywhere because we granted a variance to begin with, and that's sort of a self-perpetuating problem. And so I'm just wondering, on these three, they may be totally reasonable. Is there any structural or specific things? Because I'm assuming disabled people do live in these areas, and I'm wondering if there's any particular reason why sidewalks can't be created here that would be cost-prohibitive areas.

In all three cases. There are no curb and gutters on these street sections. So And then they they gradually drop off into a road ditch right off of the the edge of the pavement on the streets So just not a good location Physically to put it it would require retaining wall to be installed in the bottom of a ditch essentially to make make it able to construct a sidewalk along the edge of the road and it would have to be right on the edge of the road and

Thank you, Director Tice. I appreciate your input there. So my feeling is that that, of course, makes sense. I do feel like when we talk about sidewalks, a lot of this comes into community planning when we put together the way these things fit. So if we had had sidewalks in mind, Especially with newer projects or things that are being redeveloped these excuses and maybe that's the wrong word these Rationals won't necessarily apply because as I've made noise about sidewalks I've got a litany of comments from people that say my neighborhood has a segment of sidewalk that should be there, but it's not and I think most of us recognize areas of the city that have that and So while I think these three are impractical, I think it's important that we hold, excuse me, while I think these three would be impractical to put in a sidewalk, I think it's quite important that we hold each of these variances in high scrutiny to make sure we're not granting them inappropriately and that future looking, that we're paying attention to it. And then Mr. Mayor, if you would allow it, I was hoping I could direct the question to the legal department.

With that, we'll go to Carla Cushman, our city attorney. as soon as she chimes in. There we go.

Good. Can you repeat the question? I apologize.

I haven't asked one yet, so you're OK. I know we had discussed prior the, I would say, fairly common municipal strategy of a fee in lieu of for public pedestrian infrastructure. And the idea behind that, just to level set a little bit, A particular lot development has a requirement to construct a sidewalk and we say, hey, it's not appropriate to do it for various reasons like the ones Director Tice mentioned that the city still has some mechanism by which it can collect a fee that can be used for public infrastructure. public pedestrian infrastructure and obviously it's complicated because you can't create a tax but there are many examples and ordinances that do that and i know that your office has been working on it so i was just wondering if you might be able to give us some consideration or updates on that process

Kinsley Groot in our office has met with you and with previous council members to discuss the fee in lieu of IDEA. It's true that this is something that's been pursued in other communities, not in South Dakota to my knowledge, but in other states. She's in the process of doing some research into that possibility and will report back when we have that done. In South Dakota, I do know that the council has the authority to order in the sidewalks at any time and that's not a complete solution to the problem that you've identified because that would happen. with the property owner probably down the line rather than the developer who gets off the hook. But sometimes it's the property owner who's asking for the exception as part of a building permit. But there are options that the council has to, require property owners to install sidewalks when they do not when they give an exception one year and ten years later it's time for those sidewalks to go in the council has the authority to do that as for other authority to take other action like you've discussed we're looking into it and we'll report back

Thank you, Carolyn. I really appreciate your effort on that. And yeah, I don't sense. I certainly am not interested in forcing certain businesses or homeowners to have to put in a sidewalk after we approved a variance. That seems kind of regressive and punitive. But I think going forward, it makes sense. And I think it aligns incentives appropriately with requesting these variances so people don't try to do one when perhaps it isn't appropriate. I yield.

All right, looking for a motion for item 11. Motion by Sechrist with a second by Maher. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 12, approved request by Roland and Shirley Meyer for variance to waive the requirement to install sidewalk along Crane Drive and the 25 foot private access and utility easement as required by 16.16.050 of the Rapp City Municipal Code.

Motion by Layman, second by, was that Biberdorf?

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 13, approved request by AVID IV Engineering on behalf of West Golden Investments LLC for a variance to waive the requirement to install sidewalk along Edwards Street as required by 12.08.060 of the Rapp City Municipal Code. Motion by Roberts, second by Seacrest. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. That takes us to the end of the consent items. We will move on to consent items 23 through 31 and open public comment for items 23 through 31. I do have a speaker request form from Mr. Millar.

Mark Millar, Concerned Citizen. How you doing today, council? So I noticed, I guess what I'm trying to do is stimulate some dialogue here. The items 25 through 29, I guess I'm in question of their direction as we're asking to return city lands back to agricultural districts. And I'm wondering how that makes any sense When on one side of town, we're giving the developers public money to develop agricultural lands into residential and commercial properties. And now on the other side of town, a large group of property that's been industrial for some time we want to bring back to agricultural. And I can only assume that that has to do with the tax base and what those people pay. And what essentially it does is it gives them an unlimited amount of time to sit on their property at a minimum tax base until they can make maximum profits. So we just did that on the north end of town to the Elevate Rapid City people, and the public bought them out for the fact that they had bought the cheapest piece of property on the block. And we helped them with that. So I would just like to remind you all, those of you who were here, and Ms. Armstrong, you weren't at that time, in December we had a nice presentation on the economics of the city. I don't remember exactly what the name of that presentation was, and I don't remember exactly what the name of the slide was. But if you go back and look, it's going to be quite obvious for you to see the slide I'm talking about. Because in the upper left-hand corner of the slide is this huge yellow box, massive compared to all the other little boxes down here in the corner. And some of you may remember what that yellow box represented was the cost of the city on the people, on the owner-occupied properties, the amount of the spending that that group carries in this community. So to go now to an industrial group or several industrial groups and say, wow, you've mined the property, you've taken the resources out, and even though it's right in the middle of the city, We're gonna let you call your land agricultural and get a tax break and sit on it for some time while we give public money to other people to develop the same type of land. I don't see how that makes any sense. But I really wish you guys would consider the number of private individuals in this community in relation to the number of rich developers.

Thank you. That will conclude the comment period for items 23 through 31. And we will move on to item 23, first reading of ordinance number 6736, an ordinance amending section 17.06 of the Rapid City Municipal Code, a request by City of Rapid City for rezoning requests from general commercial district to public district for property generally described as being located at 4121 Homestead Street. Motion by Sechrest with a second by Meyer. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 24, first reading of ordinance number 6737, an ordinance amending section 17.06 of the Rapid City Municipal Code, a request by City of Rapid City for a rezoning request from office commercial district to public district for property generally described as being located at 1225 Neal Street. Motion by Segrist, with a second by Meyer. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 25, first reading of ordinance number 6739, an ordinance amending section 17.06 of the Rapp City Municipal Code, a request by Renner Associates LLC for Sweet Creek LLC for rezoning requests from low density residential district one to general agricultural district for property generally described as being located at 500 Krebs Drive. The recommendation is to approve in conjunction with a planned development designation. Motion by Tamang? Second. Second by Sechrest. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 26, first reading of ordinance number 6740, an ordinance amending section 17.06 of the Rapp City Municipal Code, a request by Renner Associates LLC for Sweet Creek LLC for a rezoning request from Light Industrial District to General Agricultural District For property generally described as being located northeast of the intersection of Cement Plant Road and Deadwood Avenue, the recommendation is to approve in conjunction with the plan development designation. Motion by Sechrist, second by Biberdorf. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 27, first reading of ordinance number 6741, an ordinance amending section 17.06 of the Rapp City Municipal Code, a request by Renner Associates LLC for Bailey Associates Inc. for a rezoning request from Business Park District to General Agricultural District for property generally described as being located east of the current terminus of Commerce Road, the recommendations to approve in conjunction with a planned development designation. Motion by Sechrest with a second by Meyer to approve. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 29, first reading of ordinance number 6742, an ordinance amending section 17.06 of the Rapp City Municipal Code, a request by Renner Associates LLC for Bailey Associates Inc. for rezoning requests from Light Industrial District to General Agricultural District for property generally described as being located east of the terminus of Commerce Road. The recommendation is to approve in conjunction with a planned development designation. And with this, we're going to go to Community Development Director, Vicki Fisher.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So when visiting with the property owner and all of these properties that you've just read in that are going to General Ag District are all owned by a gentleman by the name of Jim Bailey, we too had a similar question. Why are you doing this? The explanation was that over time, he has purchased this property with the underlying zoning for the most part in place as it is today. But he wants to hold it as green space. He doesn't want a development right now. visiting with director of equalization they have indicated that for them the taxation of the property is based on the use they don't look at the city's zoning their qualification for it to be considered general ag does not align with us calling something general ag for us in the city we see general ag as a holding zone but because the general ag district does allow for the operation of cattle and other farm type uses we wanted to make sure that if we're going to take something that's in an otherwise developed area and put it back as general ag to maintain it as green space we didn't want to see herds of cattle brought be brought onto the property and be disruptive to some upscale commercial or residential he was completely in line with that he has 41 head of cattle that he currently allows to graze a large area part of it will be allowed through this plan development designation if He would want to expand that operation or do any other structural development It will require a final plan development be brought forward so we can see whether or not it's appropriate in this area of the city Well, thank you for that background So

Did I read N28 and we approved it already? I think we're about to go into 29 if I recall. So I'll read in, or let's take a vote just in case. Heidi, did I need to take a roll call? No motion on 28, all right. So do we have a motion? We got a motion by Sechrist. And Meyer's seconding. And John's chiming in. All right.

Thank you very much. Can I ask Vicki Fisher a question? Certainly. So, Vicki, just because the zoning on this property is low-density residential and industrial, it is still being taxed through the county as ag at the moment.

Correct.

So the tax on it is probably $3,000 or $4,000 a year, which it's going to still be. when it goes to the new zoning. So the taxpayers aren't losing anything. That's my question.

Not wanting to speak on behalf of Director of Equalization, but nothing's going to change. And they have indicated that they tax it based on the land use, not how we have it zoned.

Yep. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. So the motion on the floor is to approve. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 29, first reading of ordinance number 6743, an ordinance amending section 17.06 of the Rapp City Municipal Code. A request by Renner Associates LLC for eternal Black Hills memory. LLC for rezoning request from medium density residential district to general agricultural district for property generally described as being located southwest of Harmony Heights Lane. the recommendations to approve in conjunction with the plan development designation. Motion by Layman with a second by Sechrist. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 30, first reading of ordinance number 6744, an ordinance amending section 17.06 of the Rapid City Municipal Code, a request by City of Rapid City for GCC Dakota Inc. for rezoning request from SDCL 11-4-30 to Mining and Earth Resources Extraction District FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS BEING LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER WEST OF RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY IN SECTION 28 T2N R7E AND NE IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER WEST OF STURGES ROAD IN SECTION 29 2TN R7E THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE WITH REVISED LEGAL DESCRIPTION. All right, we got a motion by Roberts with a second by Evans to approve. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Nay. The motion was by Roberts, the second was Maher. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? We have two nos, Armstrong and Evans. Item 31, a request by Long Branch Civil Engineering Inc. for BGC Business Park LLC for Buren Properties LLC for preliminary subdivision plan for proposed lots one, R2 of block five of Farrar Business Park and lot one of Deadwood Avenue Commercial Subdivision, generally described as being located southwest of the intersection of Calamity Road and Hickcock Trail the recommendations to approve with stipulations. Motion by Sechrest with a second by Roberts to approve. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. That takes us to public hearing items 32 through 38 and we will open the public hearing for items 32 through 38. I have one speaker request form from James Bailotta for item 36.

Yes, my name is James by a lot. And I urge the council to remove or table 36 for the following reasons. I brought all the receipts. These are the bid board and visit rapid city minutes that I'd like to go over starting in June of last year. Uh, you remember Callie, you were there, you actually started attacking churches for not being assessed as being a major concern. You know, you're lucky, Jason, your church is not in the downtown district. They also started to go on to create indirect costs, blaming that on the churches. Last I looked, the churches don't provide drug needles or liquor bottles. You might want to talk to your downtown businesses along with the cigarette butts. I don't see churches handing out cigarettes. That you wanted additional money from the city, the county and the churches. And you want to go after and distinguish the difference between worship facilities and their admin buildings. And you specifically targeted the diocese. Great job. Then we get to September. Lance, you were there. Callie, you were there. They had to tell you to put public comment on the agenda by the city attorney's office. You know, Carla Cushman. They actually told you to make the meetings open to the public. They told you to stop having private meetings because you were having quorums in your boards and through city councilmen at these private parties. And that those rules applied to your emails, texts, Zoom calls, and correspondences that you were tagging each other in. Good job. October. Joel Brandon. He loved that guy. Braun. He works for you, Mr. Mayor. And Kevin Meyer. You were there at Visit Rapid City's board. You actually were invited to a private September 10th invite-only community event regarding the TIF. Good job. Suck up the money. December. Even after being warned about your legal problems, you guys still wanna go after churches to tax the churches for your downtown tourism district. I'm sorry, this is the same Visit Rapid City that prevented and barred the advertisement of the religious festival until this year? You've gotta be kidding me. You guys should be disgusted, and especially the people who are there.

All right, that takes us to the end of the public hearing. So we will close public hearing for items 32 through 38, and open consent public hearing items 32 through 36, would the council like to remove any item for separate consideration? 32. Or 32 through 36, yes. 36, please. You're pulling item 36, I'm sorry. All right, we have item 36 pulled. All right, we have a motion by Seekers to approve items 32 through 38, with the exception of 36, with a second by Tamang. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 36, approve resolution number 2026-032B, a resolution levying assessment for Downtown Business Improvement District 2026. This item was continued from the July 20th, 2026 City Council meeting. Councillor Meyer, you pull this item, ma'am.

I'd just like to abstain, thank you.

Duly noted. Motion by Sechrist with a second by Tamang to approve. All in favor? Any opposed? Who's the aye? All right. Motion carries with one no from Biberdorf and one abstention from Meyer. That takes us to the end of the consent public hearing calendar and we will move on to non-consent public hearing item 37 through 38. Excuse me. What's that? My apologies. When I heard 36, I may have said 38. I apologize. But we are on item 37, second reading of ordinance number 6734, an ordinance amending section 17.06 of the Rapid City Municipal Code, a request by City of Rapid City for GCC Dakota Inc. for rezoning requests 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. Martin's Drive. OK, the motion on the floor is to approve by Sechrist with a second by Lehman. And we have Councillor Armstrong in the queue. The floor is yours, ma'am.

Question for the community development director, please.

Absolutely.

Ms. Fisher, could you explain this to me a little more? It's going to a low density residential district. What was it before?

So previously, this is a part of what was owned by the state known as Cement Plant, which the city attorney's office said needs to be referenced as the South Dakota Codified Law 11-4-30. So it's going from what was a part of the Cement Plant property. And after meeting with them, they agreed that the best and highest use for this property would be residential down the road. So this is now going to align with the other zoning in the area. LDR1. Perfect.

Thank you so much. I yield.

Thank you. Well, the motion on the floor is to approve. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 38, Resolution 2026-061, a resolution for a vacation of right-of-way for property generally described as being located at 3415 5th Street. Motion by Roberts with a second by Biberdorf to approve. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. We have the need for an executive session pursuant to SDCL 1-25-26 and 7 for cyber security update. Do we have a motion? Got a motion by Tamang with a second by Roberts to go into executive session. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? We're in executive session. Thank you.

Let's go.

Okay, do we have a motion to come out of executive session? Motion by Armstrong. Second. With a second by Meyer to come out of executive session. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? We're out of executive session. We have no need for staff direction, so we will move on to the bill list and go to item 39. With that, we'll go to finance director Daniel Ainslie.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The bills for Main Street Square and Visit Rapid City total $229,327.96.

Motion by Sechrist with a second by Tamang to approve. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries with one abstention from Meyer. Item 40.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The remaining bills total $12,851,144.76.

Motion by Meyer with a second by Roberts to approve. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. And a motion by Stroman with a second by Tamang to adjourn. All in favor? Any opposed? We're adjourned. Thanks, everyone.