City Council Agendas, Packets and Minutes - Regular Meeting

The agenda passes over to the county. We'll call the county to order.

We'll call.

motion to approve the agenda.

So moved. Second.

I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion passes.

Thank you very much. So public hearings. The first reading of the proposed ordinance to change the Grunewald addition into HI. Jose, do you want to talk about that? Both of you, very good, okay.

So the county received a petition to rezone approximately three acres on the north side of Timber Road, approximately one mile west of city limits. The applicant is requesting that the land be rezone from the A1 Agricultural District to the HI Heavy Industrial District. If approved, the zoning, the rezoning will allow the applicant to construct storage units. This here shows, this here is Timber Road, Highway 50. This would be the city limits right here. So you can see it's about one mile west of town on the north side. It's this rectangular area right there on the north side of Timber Road. One quick question.

The public notice says LI, light industrial. As recommended by the Planning Commission.

The applicant's request was for HI.

Well, this is saying that it's gonna be for L1, though.

So the applicant requested HI, and the recommendation from the planning commission was for LI.

And he was unanimous on both ends.

Right, but then they would have denied his HI, right? They don't deny, they recommend. So the recommendation is for an LI, but his request is still for HI.

That's not what the notice says. That's what I'm wondering, is why the notice doesn't say HI.

I talked with Mike about it and he said this is the, he's not here, but he said this would be an appropriate notice per the recommendation of the Planning Commission for LI. So.

But we're considering HI, correct? Just so everybody's clear what we're considering. I mean, the applicant is wanting us to consider HI.

The applicant requested HI. The recommendations are for LI. For LI. Is everybody clear with that then? So if I were to continue reading the memo, then as I continue, then I would actually say that during the consideration by the planning commissions, their recommendation was for LI and that staff's recommendation would concur with the planning commission's recommendation to make it LI.

So the notice that was posted out at the property, did it say HI?

I don't know. It said LI. The same notice that was on the newspaper was the same one on the property.

Okay. I guess we can get into that in the discussion, but I'm just, well, I'm trying to figure out, I mean, people are wondering, if people aren't here, they're like, well, I don't care if it's LI, but they might have a problem if it's HI, but they won't know that by the notices that are posted. We're still considering. I don't post it. I don't know what it's supposed to be. I know, but does everybody understand what I'm saying? I mean, it's not posted for what we're actually considering. I know what the recommendation was, but the applicant was for HI, and none of the publications or postings are for HI. Well, okay.

What do you want me to do about it?

I guess I don't know I well, I'm pretty sure the way we should it should have it should be posted the way we're supposed to Consider it. I don't post them. I understand that. Okay, but do you understand our what's going to be our issue here pretty quick?

I reckon I know what the issue is because this is I mean we have many City site we have many times that we have actually had a recommendation that does not fit with the actual request from the applicant. Whenever that happens, we still post and publish what the applicant requested because that is a request, right? So then when we have these meetings, then we go ahead and tell the council this is the original request, which was the HI, and that the planning commission, after considering, made a different recommendation.

And I would 100% go along with that. But we didn't do that this time. We didn't post, we didn't publicize the actual applicant's request. Am I the only one not, or does everybody understand this? I'm just trying to figure out if I'm the only one lost. I know, you don't do the posting. Okay, I don't publish it, I don't post it, I just read this right now. Right, but if we were to get taken to court, and they go, where's the publication, where's the postings, and we approve it for H.I., But it was posted for LI. The zoning is no good.

Can we ask our attorney back there, is there an issue with this one as we've got two different things going on on the team?

Oh, sorry.

Jose, is the property owner agreeing to the recommendation of the Planning Commission to do LI instead of HI?

At the Planning Commission meeting, he said he was in accordance with it, yeah.

Okay. So I would take that, that the request has been amended, and so it was proper to publish notices and post notices of a change to LI. So if that's what happened, then I think you're good to vote on that. I would agree with you, Commissioner, that it would not be appropriate to vote to move this to HI.

But Jose stated in the beginning that the applicant is requesting HI from us, though.

That was the application.

Yes, but he's still requesting us, this board right now.

That's not my understanding. My understanding is that through the planning commission process, the applicant has now said, I would take LI.

Yeah, well, that's not what Jose said, though, right?

He's reading the history of the application, and the history of the application was a request for HI. But that has now changed.

So the applicant... Grunewald is actually asking, is he OK with the LI? Yes, sir. Yes.

Yeah.

At the meeting, he said he was OK with the LI. OK. That's where I was confused.

So I would agree with you that if you were going to vote today on HI and that was not posted, that would not be appropriate. But your understanding or not knowing yet that the applicant is OK with the recommendation for LI, those notices are posted. You're good to vote on that.

OK. Yeah.

Perfect. Sorry. Well, there's nothing else for me to read. So, I mean, at the end of the day, the recommendation is going to be to follow staffs and the city, at least for the city council, staff and the city's planning commission, recommend the city council advance the ordinance for consideration to the second reading in order to approve the request to resound the area to the LI, Light Industrial District. I mean, I don't have the ordinance with me. I got it right here. But essentially, there's more, I don't know, But worse things, I guess, are gonna be allowed in the HI. Heavy industry, more manufacturing, more so forth. The LI is mainly light manufacturing items, storage units, maybe some commercial here and there. But it's gonna be, it's similar to what you see in town with light industrial and heavy industrial. It's very similar to that.

Yeah, so Masaba would be a heavy industrial. Yeah.

Are there any visitors we heard on this subject? Do you want to chat one up? Yeah, please, please do. Please take your name and address and then talk away. Yeah, me too. I'm with you.

Yeah, Kirk Sorensen on the Timber Road. And it's true, his first plan was down at Holmes's Welding Shop. And he wanted to buy a chunk of ground for me and I said no. And he kept on, but to work with him, I sold him enough because he wasn't on Lewis and Clark water, which he wanted to build on, and I don't think they'd appreciate that, and all this. Well, he's cleaned that up and all this, and I thought, well, I worked with him, he'd be happy with this. Let's see how that works out first to see if that slight industry I understand. He's thinking about, now he's going to be on the other side of me where it's, I don't want to look at that across the road from my house. I don't like people driving down the road and looking at that. It's still ag community. And me, I'm getting too old too, I don't know. But, you know, it's been creeping out and it's been pretty good. We have homes as a landmark for us growing up out there. So, serializing all that and and looking at the way he's going to build those, you know, you can see there could be a lot of other activities there, you know. I was directed to a place by Beersford, that's what he's modeling it after, and they got tractors sitting out front, and they got, you know, I just, you know, is out of the place and I'm old and I do change some, but I just don't think there'd be a better place for them. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other members of the public? Discussions from council members? Do you have any discussion from the county commission? So yes.

Can either of you talk a little bit about what the surrounding areas look like in terms of zoning? I know right up there on the city limits we have a little bit of a strip of LI, but what does it look like on the county side, can we see?

pull it up on the main screen. All right, so if you look here, all these different color, these are all inside the joint jurisdiction. The lighter color ones are gonna be your light industrial districts. We just had the Cypress Rail go down here. These fields were done way back when And so measuring from this field over, it's a quarter mile away, or 1,300 feet really. So, I mean, at least to me that's a nearby parcel.

Is it contiguous or not to the?

It's not, no, it's not continuous.

This is Mr. Sorensen here. This is Mr. Sorensen, I didn't speak to you today.

These two, yes sir, yep.

Does anybody else have any questions about this land here? Do I hear, is there a motion to approve the recommending that we advance this ordinance for consideration of second reading? Yes. Go ahead, please.

Can you put the map back up for a second? Just for clarification, there is that little strip that's along Timber Road. Is that part of the consideration as well, or is it just the... No, no, just the red square. What's the...

I'm at a distance between one light industrial to the proposed light industrial.

And would you say the gray area was what?

So this lighter area is all light industrial.

Right. And then The gray area that the red box is inside, though, that's a little different color, is that it?

Yeah, so this purple area, that's just the joint jurisdiction boundary. I got this off of Beacon. But it is A1.

It's AG now?

Yes, sir. Yeah. Okay.

But... So, I'm going to have one square inside A.

On the road. Yep.

On the road. But yeah, and kind of like the gentleman said earlier, the examples that he wants to put up are just like the ones up by Beersford over by Truck Town. I think they're big enough to fit a camper and boats in.

Okay, any other questions for the staff? Nope. I would still ask if there is a motion to approve moving this to the second reading to approve the request to rezone this as light industrial or if there is not such a motion. We moved, is there a second to that motion? well there's no second to that motion so what do we do now uh parliament or parliamentarily speaking yeah is there a motion thank you very much is there a motion to deny this is there a second to that motion second any further discussion on the motion didn't deny And then moving this to the second reading to approve this change. Any further discussion on our part? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion to deny, which is backwards, but all in favor of the motion to deny say aye. All opposed say nay. Motion to deny passes.

I'll entertain a motion. Any orders? Motion to deny. I'll second. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those in favor sign. Motion passes.

Thank you very much. Item B. First reading of ordinance 1661 to amend the boundaries of the joint jurisdiction zoning area. Is it A and Noah?

Yes, sir. Yep. So after we completed the comprehensive plan last year, one of the first steps was actually updating the ordinance itself because right now it currently has meets and bounds. Those meets and bounds don't line up with the comprehensive plan. So by adopting this new ordinance, what it would be doing is replacing the current meets and bounds with verbiage of saying refer to this map. So instead of having to have a surveyor come out and do all the meets and bounds, every time we adjust it, it just updates the map. So on my side, the Planning Commission did recommend the packet as is, as a 5-0 decision.

I guess I agree with everything that Noah said. The only difference would be that the City's Planning and Zoning Commission did make a different recommendation. They did agree as far as the boundary, but there was verbiage that was included in the amendment of the ordinance, and that verbiage was on subsection C, specifically the, excuse me, the third line where it starts with is change. comma, it is preferred that it be in a direction of the annexation. The word shall, the Planning Commission recommended that the word shall should be removed and replaced with it is preferred that it be in the direction of the annexation. That would be the only difference. So the Planning Commission, with that amendment being considered, the Planning and Zoning Commission for the city recommended that the City Council approve the ordinance with a six to zero vote with that amendment.

Thank you, are there any visitors preferred on this subject? Okay, not any discussion of city council. Julia.

Thank you. Primarily for our new members and such, we've discussed this previously. Would you say that this is in line with our previous discussions to both the preferred language as well as the sort of direction? Or do you think that there's anything new or different from our previous discussions this spring?

I guess as far as the map itself that complies or that matches what was discussed regarding the verbiage, I believe what was amended too was also more of a match with what the comprehensive plan said. Yep.

Any other questions, comments, discussion? How about a separate?

Is that approved as recommended by this?

Approved as recommended with the additional amendment.

Yes, I'm sorry.

As amended with the amendment in subsection C regarding the language preferred.

So that's the city one?

Yes. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I appreciate that clarification. All in favor of that amended wording? I'm going to give a saying aye. Aye. All opposed say nay.

What's that?

It removes the shell and adds the buffer.

But there's another shell.

No, in C. Yes, sir. Whatever acreage is annexed in, is the acreage that will be moved?

So if they were to annex 40 acres, we would shift.

But what if they annexed 10 acres?

That's what the discussion would be. Everyone would still have to vote to... amend the map of the boundary line. So if there's only five acres taken away, you can't really get to the next road or the next section line with only five acres. So having that language, you're acting to try and maintain the same boundaries or distance inside of it, but if it's not feasible that year, because there's only three acres of annexation, then you wouldn't change it.

What it's saying is that it still shall move in that direction of annexation. If it went north, it goes north.

No, that's the wording that was changed. The shall is announced now.

on your part, our planning commission is different. It proves two recommendations.

Yes, I gave you our planning commission recommendation. Yes, sir.

Yep.

As I understand it, the difference is that the city one removes that inflexibility of the word shall so that it has to move in the same direction and instead just says that it's preferred. But the second shall is regarding the joint planning commissions shall have to work together. And so

Which is what would have to happen anyway.

Which would have to happen anyway. And so this really, I mean, makes more flexibility, which I think would probably be better on both parts. That we don't have to move. If it doesn't make sense to move in that direction, whether it's for the county or city or both, then it doesn't have to be that way. But it's preferred that it works that way.

How much should it be preferred in the show?

Depends on who's on the board.

I see that one. I'm talking about down here. That one? Yeah.

we've got two options we can we can accept theirs or we can accept that one and go back to the drawing board we still have to prove whatever so all right and we've been do this with our discussions I thought yeah I didn't realize that there was another one coming up

I'm going to make a motion that we adopt the county's language and leave shell in place in the ordinance.

Second. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Lindsay?

So that means that we then have to work out the language differences, right? Which might, I mean, we could vote on whether or not to adopt theirs, but if yours passes, we will have to... Go back to the drawing board. Go back to the drawing board. Okay, just wanted to clarify.

Unless we work something out before the second reading.

Somehow. And that was kind of the, you know, the planning commissions both discussed, but at the end of the day, it's your guys' decision, and that's, I mean, everything else minus that one wording is, you know, agreed upon for our counterparts.

Any other discussion? Questions? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion passes. We have no old business or new business. We've got to figure out what to do. Are we moving to a second reading or are we going to go back to the drawing board?

What do you guys want? That's up to you guys. We can go to the second reading and we can vote on it then or we can just send it back to Planning Commission.

I guess, would this be a substantial change? Would it be a substantial change? Just talking about the verbiage, right?

It would be, but I mean, they both came, so it's not a change of what we're going to consider.

That's probably a lawyer question.

I mean, since we heard them both, it's not a substantial change, because we could have adopted either one. Correct.

So then, I mean, does the motion not pass then? Because you have two differing votes? Yeah, I don't know. I mean, we didn't agree.

Well, that's what I mean, yeah. I guess following how we've always operated, if we don't agree, it dies. I'm just asking.

I'm not saying that's what happened.

Based on past experience, if one says no, and that's kind of what we did, they said no to ours, we said no to theirs by each other's passing their own. And normally a no vote is... It's dead, one no vote is a dead vote.

Lindsay?

I have a question maybe for our attorney. Is this a big enough difference that if we went to a second reading with these two differences, could we resolve it in the second reading or do we have to come out of the first reading with the same language?

I would say on this, you need to come out of this meeting with the same language.

a substantial change so I understand that we are not going to advance this to a second reading so then the correct ordinance that's in effect before tonight's meeting is this still the one in the right mood yep okay understand that right yeah yeah it's it's dead it's if we don't both agree then agreement so we we can we can vote to move it back in planning and zoning well

I guess I want one more point of information. Can we read this language as it is in the city, the one that we just voted on again?

Just that section. So the way that was proposed, I'm gonna read the entire C. In the event of an annexation, the joint city slash county planning commissions and governing bodies shall meet at least once per year to consider any boundary modifications. If the boundaries change, it is preferred that it be in the direction of the annexation. In the intent of this section, is that the joint city slash county planning commissions and the governing bodies shall act to maintain an area of joint jurisdiction which would equal that which existed prior to the annexation.

And the issue is that you want it to say it shall.

You want it preferred. I mean, it's those two words that are the difference.

So I guess we need to work on that outside of this meeting. Well, we send it back to Planning and Zoning. That's what I meant, yeah. Anybody else? All right, I guess we are not setting this forward for consideration or second reading, and this is a dead matter at this point.

So then we'll take it back to the Planning Commission, come up with something different, maybe two different ordinances, one for the boundary and one for the verbiage, and then we can go from there. That way the boundary changes but the verbiage can be discussed.

We already voted on the boundary, didn't we?

No, this was all one.

It was one section, so yeah. Because this would be replacing the meets and bounds. Okay.

Okay. Okay. Progress even to discover our differences. So thank you very much for that. Is there any other matter, no business or new business for this group, combined group? Very good. Do I, should we motion to adjourn?

Yeah, we can, we adjourn on that. We both do that?

All right, very good.

Move to adjourn this meeting. Second.

All in favor of adjourning as a joint meeting, say aye.

Aye.

Move to adjourn the commission. Second. Motion to second, all those in favor say aye.

Aye. Opposing sign, motion passes. All right, musical chairs. Musical chairs over there.

Oh, wait a moment. Music stopped.

All right, well, let's call the regular six o'clock meeting to order. Can I have a roll call, please?

Cheeseman? Here. Gilbertson? Here. Hellwig? Here. Jennewine? Here. Lieber? Here. Lias? Here. Murrah? Here. Toller? Here. Marrow-Kelly?

Here. Will you please stand and join me for the Pledge of Allegiance?

with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you very much. Has everybody had a chance to review the minutes of the July 6th special meeting and the July 6th regular meeting? Any suggestions or changes to those?

Move approval of the minutes.

Is there a second to approve these minutes?

Second.

All in favor of approval of the minutes say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. Minutes are passed. Has everybody had a chance to read the agenda for tonight? And are there any changes or additions to tonight's agenda? Moving about the agenda. Seeing none, we have a motion to approve. Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor of approving the agenda as is, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Agenda is passed. uh visitors to be heard this is a we probably have heard this before but persons addressing the council will use the microphone of the podium not speak from the chairs whether they're sitting in raise your hand to recognize from the podium state your name and address for items not on the agenda members of the public may speak under visitors to be heard which is you know now on any topic not on the agenda. Remarks are limited to five minutes and no decision will be made at this time. But for agenda items, public testimony will be taken at the beginning of each agenda item after the subject has been announced by the mayor and explained by staff. And again, any citizen wishes may speak one time for five minutes on each agenda item. Public testimony will then be closed and the topic will be given to the governing body for possible action. Are there any visitors to be heard tonight on any item not on the agenda? Very good. Moving to item six, public hearings. Sorry, gonna find my place here. The special daily malt beverage and wine license for Clay County Fair Board. Nick.

The Clay County Fair Board has submitted an application for a special daily malt beverage and wine license beginning on Wednesday, August 12th and running through Saturday, August 15th for a beer garden area in the West Arena for the Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday night events and also on Friday night for a fenced portion of High Street with a band and dance. As the event this year will include a band and dance on City Street, ordinance allows the city to include such conditions and restrictions as the government body may deem appropriate and consistent with state law. The routine police department records check of the parties involved with the special daily license revealed no records regarding behavior in the past that would cause any hesitation in supporting the application. City staff is unaware of any problems with the previous special daily license granted to the Clay County Fair Board. The city has already received a $30 per day licensing fee and a $20 advertising fee for the applicant for a total of $140. The administration recommends approval of the special daily malt beverage and wine license contingent upon compliance with the police chief's recommendations with the understanding that the City Council is comfortable with the applicant holding the license, can properly distribute mall beverages and regulate the events, and there is complete understanding and agreement by the applicant with regard to any conditions and restrictions the City Council may require after further information is provided.

Very good, thank you very much, Nick. Any discussion, any visitors we heard on this subject? Seeing none, discussion among the City Council. Thank you. Is there a second? All in favor of approving this malt beverage and wine license with claim 104, did I get by saying aye? Aye. Opposed say nay. Passes. Don't go too far. Okay. Oh, okay. All right. We've got a new one. So item B, special permit to exceed noise levels, ribs, rods, and rock and roll.

Ribs Rods Rock and Roll has applied for a special permit to exceed allowable noise levels for a street dance on West Main Street between High Street and Prospect Street, as well as Kidder Market and Austin Streets, on or about Friday, September 11th, and Saturday, September 12th, from 12 p.m. to 11.45 p.m. on both nights. The city council will need to determine if the event is in a suitable location with appropriate facilities during the allowable time and if the applicant can demonstrate the public benefit of the event. The organizers of the event have paid the $25 fee for the noise permit. Administration recommends approval of the special noise permit unless information is presented at the public hearing indicating that there would be problems related to the noise.

Thank you very much. Are there any visitors who heard on this matter? Seeing none, any discussion among city council members? Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor of approving this special permit to exceed system noise levels, please at the campus say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Thank you very much. Yes.

I just want to say welcome to King and Baker, our former USD student body president. I'm pretty excited to see her as an intern here, thank you.

I know you. Sorry, very good. Item C, is that also Keegan? No, okay, very good. Nick, this is the Special Dated Malt Beverage and Wine License for Ribs, Rods and Rock and Roll.

Ribs, Rods, and Rock and Roll Inc. has submitted an application for a special daily malt beverage and wine license for the Ribs, Rods, Rock and Roll annual event on September 11th and 12th on Main Street between Washington and Church Street, Radigan Platz, Market Street from Maine to Bloomingdale Street, Austin Street from Maine to Kitter, Kidder Street from Austin to the alley between Court and Market Street, public parking lot at Market and Kidder, private parking lot at Market and Kidder, Prospect from Main Street to Half Block North, and to include any other streets closed for the event. Street closer requests will be a part of the August 3rd City Council meeting. As the event will be held in city streets and city property, the ordinance allows the city to include such conditions and restrictions as the governing body may deem appropriate and consistent with state law. Ribs Rods and Rock and Roll Inc. has requested to sell beer and wine on city streets. There were team police department record checks of the parties involved with a special daily license revealed no alcohol-related violations or felony convictions in reference to this application. City staff are not aware of any problems with disputes with the previous special daily licenses granted to Ridge, Raj, and Rock and Roll. The city has already received a $30 per day license fee and the $20 advertising fee from the applicant for a total of $80. The administration recommends approval of the special daily malt beverage and wine license as requested. Contingent that the city council is comfortable with the applicant holding the license can properly distribute malt beverages and regulate the event as outlined by the police chief. An agreement by the applicant with regard to any conditions and restrictions the city council may require after further information is provided at the public hearing.

Thank you very much, Nick. I appreciate that. Are there any visitors to talk about this particular license? Nope. Seeing none, any discussion from city council members?

No approval.

Is there a second? Second. Second. Very good. All in favor of approving this license, indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. The motion passes. Thank you very much, Nick. All right. Oh, you didn't go far. Good. You read the agenda. Very good. Okay. The next item is a special permit to exceed noise levels for Life Flight on September 19th. Take it away, Nick.

Life Flight has applied for a special permit to exceed allowable noise levels for a worship night near the Prentice Park bandshell on September 19th. The requested closure of 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. is for setup and cleanup of the event. The actual concert is from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. The event is geared towards Gen Z but is welcome to all ages. The worship night is also a free event. Additionally, the applicant has been in contact with our parks department. They will not need street closures and there will be no vendors or food trucks. The applicant will, however, have a merchandise table and potentially some porta-potties. The city council will need to determine if the event is in a suitable location with appropriate facilities during the allowable time and if the applicant can demonstrate the public benefit of the event. The organizers of the event have paid a $25 fee and administration recommends approval of the special noise permit.

Thank you. Are there any visitors who heard of this subject? Nope, seeing none. Any discussion from council members? Yes, Chair Kerry.

So there's not a lot of information about what this event actually is. What are we approving here?

It's like a Christian concert kind of thing. A worship night, I guess, yeah.

Okay. Yes, I'm sorry, go ahead, Gary, Dave.

Do you know, is this sort of like a rock concert type of thing?

Is this going to be blaring guitar music? I guess I don't know. I'm going to guess it's not rock. I have no idea what kind of music it is, but I...

I'm not sure, but I think Sioux Falls hosted this for a long, long time. It is kind of a rock... The one in Sioux Falls wants any help.

Okay.

I wondered about, oh sorry, go ahead. Thank you very much, Mike. I don't feel that this will be anywhere close to the one in Sioux Falls. And we just approved Ribs, Rods, and Rock and Roll downtown, which will be as easily as loud, if not louder. It is a worship night for churches to come and have a worship night with music. So I will make the motion that we approve it.

Any further discussion? I'd like to say one thing. It does seem like they know what they're doing as far as sound. Their application is pretty complete. They have a Z8 sound diagram, and they appear to know what they're doing. So did you have another comment before we vote?

Well, I guess this is about noise level, so never mind. I withdraw my call.

Okay. Any further discussion?

If there's any time...

All in favor of allowing this noise exceed principle noise level for life light indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Passes. Thank you very much. All right, item E. First reading proposed ordinance 1563 about the planned development district.

That's you Jose. Thank you. So city staff, I've been working with the owners of the land located directly south of the Vermilion River and west of Highway 50 or 19. This is a map showing the property that's in question or that this PDD would be affecting. And you can see here the Vermilion River, Highway 19, and this area here was recently annexed was actually annexed in February 2026. Since then, the city staff have been working with the owner regarding development of the land, including the zoning. The proposed ordinance will create a new zoning district, hence the PDD. The title for this PDD would be, as you mentioned, Mayor, would be Munger Ridge Plan Development District. Such, the owner is proposing to have larger rights of way, no curb and gutter, no on-street parking, drainage ditches and for sidewalks to be constructed at a later time. All these items have been considered and are addressed in the ordinance, in the memo for the ordinance. It should be said that all of these items, it's a little bit peculiar I guess to have within city limits, but the intent of the ordinance is to have a more spacious, more rural type of development within city limits. The City Planning Commission did review all these items at their July 13th meeting. At that meeting, after there were several members of the public present, although none of them spoke, the Planning Commission did have some questions for staff. After discussions between the City Planning Commission and staff, the proposed district was approved or recommended for the council to approve as presented. The vote at that time was six to zero. One item that should be noticed or mentioned is the fact that the ordinance will be requiring that the minimum lot area be 20,000 feet. This is much larger than the minimum required right now within city lots, which is 6,500. There's a reason for that and that's due to the fact that initially all of these lots are going to be serviced by septic systems. As such, they require a larger parcel. So all of these lots, if this were to happen, and we're not, I'm teetering, walking a fine line here, because we're not talking about this development, but I want to explain this, I guess, and this is the best that I can do. Within all of these lots, you'll notice that the minimum area that he has is at least one acre in all of these. So that's twice, a little bit over two times the minimum of 20,000 square feet. which is fine. We have the $20,000 there in case the applicant, whoever they may be in the future in this case, they can actually shrink those slots if they want to. But at the end of the day, what he's proposing and what we'll be discussing in the future with the Planning Commission, if this ordinance is approved, this suffices and meets the proposed ordinance as being presented. With all that being said, staff and the Planning Commission recommend the City Council advance the ordinance for consideration at a second reading.

Thank you. Are there any visitors to be heard on this matter? No? City Council, comments, questions? Two minutes.

I have two questions. The first one is just on the lot size you were talking about. That one acre minimum is large for what we do, but that is the typical minimum just outside of city limits in the county and the JJZA that have similar types of development. Is that correct?

So what we're proposing for minimum is 20,000 square feet.

Okay.

What he has in this plan is one acre, which is fine. Okay. Yeah.

Okay, the other question I have is regarding ground cover. Item K, is there a reason that we have this ground cover? Each lot shall have a minimum of living ground cover of no less than 50% of lot area. Does that align with the city?

So typically whenever we have within city limits, Bliss Point, Jack Powell, and a lot of these larger apartment complexes that we have been developing within the city, we actually require a drainage system so a regional pond in the case of Jack Powell. But the threshold for that is that you can only have 50%. If you have over 50%, then you're required to have the pond. In this instance, the developer doesn't want to have a pond, so then the way that we're gonna be making sure that that doesn't happen is to minimize the coverage as far as impervious area within the lot. That's why that 50% is there. We do have those if you're going to ask.

I know we do have some minimum requirements already that we have discussed before about maybe years ago regarding living ground cover, but this seems for a very different kind of purpose. more sort of necessary, but it just makes me think if there are any future consideration of that ground coverage in the city, then this is something that we would need to take into consideration that there are some areas that may be reliant on that 50%. Thank you.

May I ask a follow-up question to that? What if I've got horses and there's no living ground cover there?

So this wouldn't allow for horses because you're in city limits.

All right. I'm picturing horses. Okay.

All right.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Yes, I'm sorry, Mike. A couple questions. Down the road, I know we're changing, there's a lot of changes in here from what we normally do in the city limits as far as road width, plot size, stuff like that. Down the road, they form an HOA out there and they want their road paved or whatever, who's gonna pay for all that? Who's gonna bring, they want water and sewer then from the city, who's gonna pay for all that?

So as far as, we're kind of getting ahead of the zoning. Okay, so in this instance, we've actually been working with a property owner already for almost a couple years now, and the plan is to actually have a city, we're going to be providing water to this area. and we're working with the developer on the plans for how the water's going to be coming and so forth. Regarding sewer, we have been working with the property owner as well on that. Initially it's going to be septic systems, but we are going to have, the plans are actually being designed to have the, if the future is going to be needing the sewer system, the plans already have that laid out. So then we'll be able to pull these plans from the drawer and say, nope, this is where it's going to go. These are the space here, so the lines. All of those right now are going to be either paid by the developer or they're going to be assessed to the individual property owners, depending on when they're going to be required. That's actually, I don't have the document affirming, but that's something that was discussed during the pre-annexation agreement. So yeah.

It's going to come if it develops, you know as well as I do. Somebody's going to want, well, we're in city limits, why don't we have city services? And like I said, the water, that's going to happen. That's going to happen. I know that's happening. Water's going to happen.

The paving of the streets, that's also going to happen.

He is gonna pave the street. Concrete or asphalt?

Concrete or asphalt? It's concrete, it sits within city limits. So the ordinance within city limits for any development is concrete.

I just don't want him to go out there and just blow in a road and lay down a four inch mat of asphalt and say there you go.

No, no, they still have to follow city ordinance within the city.

Thank you for that clarification, Gary.

So Jose, with that then, later on down the road as the houses start coming in, the homeowners are going to be responsible for sidewalks, gutters, how's that going to work?

So I would say that if this is accepted, the gutters will more than likely never come. You're going to have ditches. That's a rural aspect of it. That's one of the reasons why the right-of-ways are gonna be so wide. They're 80 feet instead of 66 feet. So there's gonna be ditches there. As far as the sidewalks, we've also thought about that. There's going to be a wider easement within these properties. that will require a sidewalk or a space for a sidewalk within those locations. As far as the need for the sidewalk, there is a, I think item number H within the ordinance talks about sidewalks and we're going to be including that within the building permit. So essentially, and we've done this in other parts of town where we say you need to put a sidewalk, but for now we're going to wait until you build it until there's a need for it either within the community or because the council says put in a sidewalk. So all the property owners are going to be aware of this, made aware of this during the building permit portion of it and also in working with the developer as well.

Thank you.

All right, any further discussion about this? Hearing none, do I have a motion to suggest that we recommend the City Council to advance this ordinance for the consideration of the second reading? Do I hear a motion to that effect?

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor of moving this to the second reading, then I'll keep on saying aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, the consent agenda. Any item listed on the consent agenda may be, by the request of any single council member, be considered as a separate item under the new business section. If any member of the public would like to discuss any consent agenda item, please notify us during the public comment period, which is right now, to have it considered as a separate item. Do any visitors have any comments on anything on the consent agenda? No, any city council members want anything removed from the consent agenda and moved to the new business? Okay, don't want to go too fast. Thank you very much. Do I have a second to that?

Second.

All in favor of moving the consent agenda or approving it, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. Consent agenda passes. All right. Old business, item A. Second reading proposed ordinance 1559 to this special mixed use building definition. Jose. Thank you.

So I'm not going to read the background to this but essentially we've been working with a developer that's wanting to do something that's unique and that would be to essentially have a residential use above above the convenience store associated with a gas station. So we had to do a couple things to make this happen. One of them was to create a use or a definition. And that's the item that you're considering, I guess, today at the second reading. The proposed definition created would be called the Fuel Dispensing Mixed Use Building. This new term is defined as a building with a fuel dispensing station where the residential use is above the convenience store associated with the fuel dispensing station. The term was created to try and maintain the original desire of maintaining residential uses from strictly commercial areas. The City Council did consider this at the July 6th meeting after public comments. The City Council voted in favor of moving the ordinance to a second reading which is tonight as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. No changes have been made to the ordinance besides the ones requested by the City Council and that was the name change from special mix to fuel dispensing. Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the amendment where the Commission's recommended changes. This being the second reading, a roll call vote is required.

Thank you very much. Are there visitors to be heard on this matter? Discussion among the City Council members? We've been through this once, so maybe we're fine there? No discussion? We have a motion to approve. Is there a second?

Second.

Motion is moved and seconded. All in favor of moving this? Oh, we have to roll call vote, right? Any further discussion? No, okay. I'm not sure how this works.

He's going to set it for you.

Okay, thank you.

It's color coded and symbol. Okay.

Every day is new. So roll call vote.

Is that up there? Yep. Oh, okay.

I love technology. I'm just a little slow. Okay, I'll pass. Motion to pass unanimously. Thank you very much. New business.

Nope. There's one more. I'm sorry. The second part of this.

Oh, okay. Yeah, so there is. There you go. Thank you. The second part. Go ahead. Which is...

Thank you. So this is the second reading of ordinance 1560. This would be working in tandem with the previous agenda item. The previous item created the ordinance, or sorry, the use in this item would actually be placing that use within a district. What we proposed, and as discussed in the first reading, was placing the use as a conditional use within the general business district. In addition, the conditional use proposal, the residential use should be separated from the gas station use. To accomplish this, staff is proposing that the building is at least 45 feet from the canopy above the gas pumps and 60 feet from the pumps itself. The 45 feet is the addition of a typical setback found in residential districts, which is 25 feet. and the required buffer between commercial and residential uses, which is typically 20 feet. The additional 15 feet for the pumps allows for more distance between the vehicles using the pumps throughout the day. The City Council again considered this at their July 6th meeting. After public comments, the Council voted in favor of moving the ordinance to a second reading, as recommended by the Planning Commission. No changes have been made to the ordinance besides the ones requested by the City Council, which again was changing the the name of the use from special mixed use to a fuel dispensing mixed use. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the amendment where the Commission's recommended changes. This being the second reading, again, we require a roll call vote.

Thank you. Sorry about my faux pas earlier. Are there any visitors preferred on this side of the question? Okay. Seeing none, anybody here in the city council have any comments about this part of the package? Okay, do I have a motion to approve this? Is there a second? So now we vote. Nine yes, zero no's, this motion passes. Now move business. Resolution adopting TIF 13 project plan.

I'll go ahead and introduce Quinn here, just see him started. So City Council's seen a couple different tax increment financing districts. The last four we have had have been more of a developer-driven TIF versus the ones we originally started out with. So at the last meeting, you approved the boundaries for TIF district number 13, and this would be for a multifamily housing project at the southwest corner of Elm Street and Alumni Street. This project plan before you is the second step in this process. Step one by state statute is to have you adopt a resolution to define the boundaries. And that's what you did at your last meeting. Step two tonight is a resolution approving a project plan. I would note included with your packet were a couple of background pieces. Most importantly, the TIF project plan, which has also been available on the city's website. A new state statute went into effect on July 1st, which required a third-party independent review of the numbers involved with that TIF project plan. Meyer Henry Law Firm in Sioux Falls completed that for us, and that has also been posted on the city's website. Council Member Towler completed a spreadsheet, as he did with the previous TIF district or two, kind of analyzing some of the numbers. And then finally, the applicant prepared an executive summary, which I believe that he's going to kind of walk through to explain this project. So at this point, I turn it over to Quinn Reimers. He's with Collier Securities, and he's representing the developer on this project.

Welcome.

Thank you.

I'm Quinn Reimers. I'm with Collier Securities and Peer. We're a municipal advisory firm. We do, you know, obviously municipal finance, like schools, cities, counties on various different topics. We also do a lot of TIFs. We do TIFs from... Rapid City, Hot Springs, Belle Fourche, out to Watertown, down to Yankton and so forth. So before you today is an affordable housing TIF and with that it's got a preliminary classification on the last page of the TIF. That's from the Department of Revenue, so they have to go through, we have to go through a submission process with them and they essentially view it. How's the project going to be rented out? What are the rents at or below the 80% AMI for the state? That's set by the South Dakota Housing Authority, which is set by HUD. There's a few different TIFs that you can have. You can have affordable housing, economic development, industrial, and local. Affordable housing, just housing, for sale or rent. For sale can't be, it's gotta be at or below 410,000 for a single family home, that's affordable housing. And then of course, like I said, the affordable housing for rents is at or below the 80% AMI for the state. Economic development, commercial piece, it can have housing in it, but there's gotta be a commercial piece within that TIF district, industrial. 3M, manufacturing kind of stuff, and then local can be whatever. Being that it's an affordable housing TIF, it essentially holds the school's general fund harmless. Any lost local effort from taxes because of the TIF is made up through the state aid education formula. This TIF is a developer TIF, like we had mentioned before. The city has no liability. All the debt goes to the developer, if any. It's an annual appropriation TIF, so it doesn't affect anybody's, the city's constitutional debt, borrowing capacity at a later date, if need be. So if the city needs to take on any future debt, this has no implications whatsoever. So with that, I guess I will run into, does everyone have the executive summary?

Okay. Okay. Okay.

I might be slightly rambling, so just let me know if anyone's got any questions. There's no dumb questions with TIFs, there's a lot to them. The district classification, like we said, is affordable housing. The structure, pay as you go. Oftentimes people say, well, you got a million dollar TIF, the city's writing a million bucks to the developer right now. That's not the case. The developer still has to pay his taxes like anybody else. They just come back through the city. The city's the conduit, the pass-through, where it goes back to the developer at a later date annually. Test max years you can have is 20 years. By the time it's all developed out, it's typically about 17, maybe 18 years, by the time they're starting to receive increment. So they don't receive increment for about... two, three years, and then from there on out until they receive their TIF amount. In this case, it's about 1.105 million. Once that's received, if they receive that in year 15 or 18, whatever it is, the TIF dissolves, or 20 years, whatever comes first. Security tax income revenues only. Obviously there's nothing else involved there. 7.2 estimated project costs. That is the site work plus all the buildings involved. We're assuming 7.2 million involved in costs there. 5.8 of which is the buildings. 1.4 per building is an estimated cost. We're assuming, so when we do our TIP projections, we've gotta do it on a conservative basis. I mean, there's a million three in project costs here. We could certainly say, okay, these buildings are gonna be a million each, and we're gonna go grab that million three. But to be realistic, and especially with these third party reviews being in play nowadays, you absolutely have to be conservative and ethical. So 800,000 is our, based on per rent, per unit taxation and comparable projects, we're assuming just about 800,000 in total valuation per building. 3.2 million for four buildings, that's 800,000 for buildings, 3.2 million. We're assuming that valuation comes about in 2030, 2031, once it's fully assessed. once a Once that 2030, 2031 period comes about, we're assuming about 60,000, 61,865 in annual TIF revenue. You know, it's TIF revenue, TIF projections are, and that could give or take, right? I mean, we don't know what the assessed value is, but we're assuming conservative here. The total projected tax increment is 1,105,832. Total TIF eligible expenses is 1,378,960. The reason that we can't grab all that project costs for that million three is because the TIF will only support up to 1.1. So the valuation plus your mill levy, the equalized rate, you're coming out to a million one. TIF requested per unit is 19,747. That's just per unit and the total TIF amount. coverage of total project costs of two revenues, 80%. Revenue projected start is 2028. That could be 28, 29. It's always a give or take in there. Depends on the speed of the build out. Stabilized projections begin in 2030 or 2031 as we had stated earlier. And then final projected TIF here. I mean 2046 is the max it could be earlier. So 2046 is what we used here adjusting to be straight up. Any questions? I know that was quick and kind of running through it.

Well, first we ask if there are any visitors to be heard on this. Yes.

No, I just wanted to, and don't go far. He's not there. So yeah, John introduced him. Also in the back, we do have the developer, Tony Brown. And then also we have his banker, which at this time it's Boyd sitting there. So I just want to introduce him. You may have questions for them. I just want to say, Chamber of Economic Development, I think last time when we were doing the TIF boundary, there was a question, when is the housing study out? I believe you all received that probably last week. And then in that summary, you do see the need for multifamily housings. If you read through it all in that executive summary, page six it was, there's that need for about 23 units per year going forward for about 10 years, in addition to what we have in construction today. So I just wanted to reiterate, one, we, from a chamber of economic development, housing needs standpoint, this meets that need. The housing study validates the need of other housing, I mean, just individual, et cetera, but multifamily in particular, so we're in support of this project, and thank you for considering it. Turn back to Quinn.

So I have some questions. What is that 80% AMI? What does that mean?

Area median income. So the state kind of just took it over. It used to be by county, set by HUD. Now the state, South Dakota Housing, just said, here's the limits. And I actually think I do have that here.

We sometimes have some difficulty with the term affordable.

Oh, certainly. I agree. Well, people have the difficulty with the 410 on the single family housing as well. That's supposed to go up, but South Dakota Housing kind of put a nip to that. Well, I certainly thought I had it. But for studio, it's about $1,100, and then you go up to about $1,600 for two-bed. Obviously, 90% of the time that's never gonna get there. You gotta look at where you're at. It's the market stuff. If you have $1600 unit rent, it's just not gonna fly. You'll be empty.

I'm sorry, I don't want you to dominate. So I saw your estimated value of the buildings at $800,000. The lady across the street is selling her house for $500,000. So I don't know how far those are valued, but would an apartment building really be valued at about the same price as my neighbor's house?

Yeah, it's hard to put a number on it. What we do is we go to your beacon or we go to your county assessor and we look at comparable projects. different apartments around town, whether it's, I don't know, we look at how many taxes they pay, how much in taxes they pay, how much their valuation of their apartment building is, and we go divide it by their number of units. Right? Right.

Yeah, absolutely, right.

So, you know what, the stencil project. It is. And so like the stencil project, those are $20 million buildings, and we had those in the plan at about eight and a half. It's just the nature of the apartment building is a commercial there, so I get it.

I had a follow-up question for Jose, though, based on your memo. It said examples of TIF eligible expenses are permit fees, engineering fees, et cetera, et cetera. But then later it says the developer is going to use the eligible TIF for land acquisition. Yep.

So he did, I think Jose did the planning zoning one. I did the council one. It's largely the same. So in the beginning part where we list all those, that wasn't project specific. So for developer TIF, those are eligible categories. Then later on where I referenced the other ones, those were project specific. That's right.

thank you i read the material okay all right thank you very much sorry to dominate it any comments or questions yes gary well first off thank you for for building affordable housing i mean that's a huge issue and an issue i hear a lot about i do know that across the country the average cost of an apartment is 1200 a month affordable housing, 1,100 a month, it's barely affordable. So I'm wondering if there's, so you're building pretty much one-bedroom apartments as I read in that?

Tony, is that something you wanted to address? 13 one-bedrooms and one two-bedroom per building. Yeah.

And I'm assuming the two-bedroom would be for managers or whatever? Okay, just a two bedroom apartment then, yeah. So, I mean, I'm just having trouble with the affordability of affordable housing.

Right, I totally get it. Remember, it's at or below. Oftentimes, even the stencil apartments, their studio and their one bedrooms, they're in the 900s and the 1100s. Those are some big apartments. Oftentimes, what we see is if you have a studio and you have an $1,100 cap on your rents, you often see it's about eight to 900 to 1,000 for those for one bedroom or a studio. So I understand that those caps are rather high. You go down to that 60% AMI, that's low income tax credits. So we're talking like low income housing for that.

Yeah, and I think stencils primarily, as I'm looking at it, at least I'm thinking college, they're renting by the room, not by the unit itself, which would make it much more affordable for students, of course.

Certainly.

So now I'm coming back to these and seeing $1,100 for a single bedroom.

That's just the cap. That's the most they can rent.

I understand. Yeah. That's about the extent of the comment. Thank you. Yep. Any other questions for Quinn?

Thank you very much.

Is there a second to that motion? Second.

We have a motion. Any further discussion? Thank you for getting that. I have a motion and a second. All in favor of approving this resolution on the TF number 13 project plan, indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Opposes?

Appreciate it.

Thank you. Well, let's talk about parking. So request a temporary move parking for the fall of 2026 USD home football games and hopefully playoffs. Alex.

Thank you. Jose is getting my map for me. He's so kind. Perfect. So on the west side of North Dakota Street, they're looking to remove parking from Alumni Street up to South Dakota Highway 50. And on the east side from the Sanford-Coyote Center, from their loading dock there up to South Dakota Highway 50, along with closing Rose Street from the parking lot south of... kyo village up to all the way up to the dome but this would be for 11 football games six of those are the fall home football games uh five will be the playoff games and the requested closure would be from 2 a.m to 6 p.m with that last year we did it altered the closure requested that was for north dakota street Instead of going all the way up to South Dakota Highway 50 on both sides, instead we're going up to that yellow A lot there where they have the $20 per spot. Additionally, we did send this over to our street fire EMS and police departments. They did not have any concerns with the requests at the moment. The city has also not received any complaints or concerns about how this closure has been handled during the past years. And UPD will be setting up and taking down those barricades before and after these football games. Administration recommends either proceeding with USD's 2026 street closure request in which they would go from Alumni Street up to South Dakota Highway 50 and from the loading dock up to South Dakota Highway 50 or going with last year's request or altered request to the yellow lot from Alumni Street up to there and then from the loading dock up to there.

I might just add to Alex's presentation, Chad Davidson is here from USD if you have any questions.

Thank you. I'm not quite clear on what our two alternatives are here.

i want to do is going to just need to mister and walk to the game side yeah but i think well last year we had this discussion and they came up with all the safety concerns and they wanted to block that often we rejected that and you know you said it quickly and i was trying to catch up with you but from the north part of the yellow We allowed that parking on both sides, I believe, last year. Up to Highway 50. Up to Highway 50. But we also, we did stop, we did say we agreed down by the loading dock from the L line. So I, it seemed to be okay last year. I would recommend that we would only allow that this year myself.

Mike, did you have a comment? Are you?

He pretty much covered it. I know last year the safety concerns that USD had about people parking there and people walking. Well, they do the same thing on University Street. They park clear to Highway 50 and walk across and do whatever. And to me, that's a moot point. Yeah, they weren't happy with us last year doing that, but parking is parking, in my opinion. In my opinion, we can't be shutting down the whole two, three blocks just so they can have room for their buses to go in and out. They have plenty of room, in my opinion.

So in conclusion, we're not going all the way up to Highway 50, we're stopping at the yellow lot.

From Highway 50 down to the yellow line, they can park. They can park on both sides down to here.

Okay, now I'm confused a little bit.

They want to ban parking from here all the way to down those sides.

Jose, let's put the map up. Jose, would you walk through those two options again?

You got it. So the requested closure for this year is from Alumni Street and going up to South Dakota Highway 50.

Closing all that.

And then on the other side, going from the loading dock all the way up to South Dakota Highway 50. But from the minutes of 2025 last year, we have listed to temporarily remove parking on the east and west side of North Dakota Street from the loading dock to USD's Yellow Lot A and to close Road Street from the front edge of the parking lots south of the Coyote Village.

where we did last year. So we went from here to there?

Yes. So USD is here. Do you want to come up and explain it better for us? Thank you very much. I'm sorry I'm so confused but I am. I was here last year.

Hello, thank you all for considering this street closure for our football games. Chad Davis and I work with the athletic department and my office oversees game day operations, public safety, all that stuff for USD football. Last year we had approved from here south for street closures, mainly operationally, team buses, and that's really about it. That can fit south. The reason I would like to go back to discussing the north of the Penn here is public safety. We have two apartments and hundreds of cars parking on the left side of Dakota Street on the map. There's a ton of traffic coming off Highway 50 south to either go to our orange lot or below it. There's concern about people crossing Dakota Street with the volume of traffic and giving them clear sight lines to see vehicles coming either direction.

How would they get to the orange lot from Highway 50 then?

Good point. Its street parking is closed.

Just street parking. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. You said street closure, I was saying street closure. Just the parking, I'm sorry. You did say that.

Okay. Last year when we closed, we stopped. We allowed parking from the north part of Yellow. We allowed on both sides up to Highway 50. And the reason for that, in my recollection, was there was concern about people crossing into that, trying to go back and forth between the yellow spot and the dome. Well, if we stopped parking from the north part of the yellow down, there should be clear line of sight for people to be there. And I think it worked out just fine last year. There were no accidents as far as we were, we were not made aware of any accidents or anybody have any problems. So I'm still in favor of keeping that, blocking off from the top of north all the way down to the loading zone and block that off. But the rest of it, I think people should be allowed to park on the street.

So just to clarify, Al, you're suggesting the second item here, which is just from the loading dock to the L-Lot A, as we did last year.

Yes, yes. That's the only part I would see blocked off. Can I make a motion?

Do you have a motion to that effect? I'll make it. I'm sorry, any further discussion on that? I'll second. So we have a motion and a second to approve the second of these two options here to allow parking street closure from the loading dock to the O-Lot A. And Rose Street is tossed in, right? Okay. Any further discussion on that one? All right. Do I hear all in favor of approving that? Say aye. Aye. All opposed, nays. Thank you. All right, so the striker, let's see where we're at here. Okay, I'm sorry. So the resolution authorizing the purchase of a striker, stretcher, and power loading system. Matt Callahan. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mayor. For those that don't know me, this is my first time in front of the new council. I'm Matthew Callahan, Chief Fire Administrator of the City of Vermont. So this is a little bit different than what we typically would bring to you for a purchase. And with the delivery of the new ambulance set for January of 2027, new equipment's being looked at for the vehicle. It's currently proposed to be included in the 2027 second penny fund. When a new ambulance is purchased, so is a new power structure and power load system. To have the new power load system and power stretcher available for installation in late November into the new ambulance, the department's requesting the city council authorize the city manager to sign documents for flex plan purchasing through Stryker. This arrangement would allow the department to order the equipment now, take delivery, and make payment to Stryker within 12 months at 0% interest. The department will utilize source well pricing to complete the purchase. By ordering now, the equipment will be delivered straight to the vendor, installed, and ready for operation when the ambulance arrives to us in January. This purchase is scheduled to come from the 2027 second penny fund. The equipment was in the proposal that the city council accepted earlier this year, but the 2027 budget has not been presented or voted on. Administration recommends that the city council approve the purchase of the power structure and power load system from Stryker for the cost of $66,877.65 on the flex plan program and authorize the city manager to sign and execute the documents of the flex plan.

Thank you. I'm looking at the field there. I see probably no visitors to be heard on this particular subject.

Nobody stays for my stuff. I'm so sorry.

I totally meant to look up what a striker is. A striker of flood. What is this?

A striker is the manufacturer of our power loads and our power cots. And so it's in all of our current ambulances. So we've been using the same vendor we have for many years.

Okay. Thank you very much. Any discussion, city council members, about this? relatively kind of unique and nice payment option there.

It's a new option that's available through Stryker so that you can still get your equipment, get it installed in your new ambulances, but still pay for it out of the next fiscal year when you budget for it.

Is there any fiscal issues with the city?

No, I think there's just awareness amongst the council that adopting this resolution, you're taking a step towards your 2027 budget, including the Senate. But beyond that, there's no financial, no, it's not a bubble for engineering or parks. He was already getting excited, but no, you're basically forecasting what you're going to do in the 2027 budget.

All right, any further discussion about this?

We'll approve it.

Is there a second? I heard it over here. Thank you very much, Mike. All in favor of approving this, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you very much. Let's talk lawn mowers. Resolution authorizes the purchase of the lawn mower for the Rec Department. Jose?

Thank you. So, our budget session is in 2026. We're going to be discussing or reviewing the equipment vehicles to be purchased through the Equipment Replacement Fund. One of these pieces of equipment to be considered is going to be a lawn mower, a 2022 72 inch hustler mower that's owned right now by the Parks and Rec Department. The existing mower has been experiencing mechanical issues and the prices are estimated to increase around 8% for 2027. Staff is proposing to purchase a mower from Sourcewell vendor. The vendor contacted again was Hustler Turf Equipment, the local dealer of the Vermillion Ace Hardware. has agreed to sell the city the equipment based on the hustler's sourceful bid. Purchasing from sourceful bid allows the city to benefit from the low prices offered to sourceful members. The city would be purchasing a Hustler Super Z 72 inch RD 35 horsepower mower with run flap tires for a total of $16,461.45. The existing mower will be sold through Purple Wave Auctions site at a later date. The plan was to have $13,000 through the Equipment Replacement Fund in 2027 for the purchase of the mower. As noted earlier, this amount would still not be sufficient to purchase a mower as the fund is currently $2,363 short of the $13,000 goal. Purchasing the mower now at the $16,461.45 price will necessitate adjusting the equipment replacement fund by a total of $5,825. The 2026 budget will need to be adjusted for this purchase. With all that being said, administration recommends a resolution for the purchase of the mower be approved.

Thank you.

Any discussion among city council members?

I would say one thing that jumps out is you had $13,000 planned and the cost is $16,000. And I'm just saying that your future plans may need to go for all kinds of equipment may be adjusted by a significant percentage. Just to say it, everything's more expensive than we thought it was five years ago.

That I couldn't tell you off the cuff. I can find out if you really want to know, but I don't know. Usually we don't, on the mowers, we do it on a yearly basis. So typically they have a five year life, especially the hustlers that we have.

Yeah, Dave.

I don't want to drift too far away from this agenda item, but I know we have a talented staff. When we have a breakdown in equipment like a mower, do we have people on staff that can work on those, or do we have to take them to,

No, for the most part, I'm going to say 95%, if not 99% of the items that happen with these mowers, our mechanics are able to work on them and fix them. We'll still have to buy the parts from Hustler or Ace or whoever, but our mechanics are able to work on them.

Okay. Is there any further discussion about this mower?

Move approval.

Is there a second? Second. I'll move and second it. Any last minute thoughts? All in favor of approving this motor purchase, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. Thank you. Passes, thank you. I don't think you go very far. The next item is agreeing with Geotech to do the staking, no, materials, I'm sorry, I thought it was staking.

No, materials first.

Okay. Overlight and power building. Tell us what that is all about, Jose.

Thank you. So in December, 2025, the city council approved entering into a contract with Banner Associates for the design and construction of the construction for the new Light and Power building after going through a thorough selection process. In May, 2026, the council awarded the construction bid to Van Burskirk. The construction of the building will require construction staking and materials testing. The agenda item being considered today or right now is the agreement with Geotech Engineering for the earthwork excavation testing and observation of rebar installation. testing of the concrete, testing of floor flatness and levelness, and observations of structural steel wells. The agreement with Geotech will be on a unit cost basis. The city will not be charged for items not performed by Geotech. As such, the cost varies, but should not exceed $37,325. The Light and Power Department budgeted for the construction of the building spans two years, 2026 and 2027. Overall, the city has proposed a budget of $5.5 million for the project. Cost of testing materials and observing construction was included in the original 5.5 budget. Administration recommends awarding the contract for materials testing and observation services to Geotech Engineering in the amount of $37,325.

Thank you very much. Have you worked with Geotech before? Are you happy with that company?

Yeah, we work with Geotech quite often.

Thank you very much. Any discussion around council members? Is there a motion to approve this?

So moved.

Is there a second to that motion? Moved and seconded to remove the contract with Geotech for materials testing and observation. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. And I apologize getting these two items confused. Now it's staking services with Banner.

Yep, so prior agenda item was materials testing and observation. Now we're going to be talking about staking. This essentially is going to be setting stakes for the building, water line, sanitary sewer, parking lot, and concrete surfaces, storage. unit portion of it and the electrical items outside of the building. The agreement with Banner will be an hourly not to exceed fee. The city will not be charged hourly, will be charged hourly up to a certain amount. The ceiling amount is $34,380. Again, this item was included in the $5.5 million estimate that was originally done by the city. With all that being said, administration recommends awarding the contract for staking services to Banner Associates in the amount of $34,380.00.

And I know you've worked with Banner before.

Yeah.

Any comments, discussion from council members on this item? The dollar amount seems in line with previous staking work that we do.

For this size of project, yeah, it does.

Okay. Very good. Does anybody move approval of this contract?

Move approval.

Second?

Second.

All in favor of approval of this contract, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. The next item is the Planning and Zoning Commission appointment. Well, current members, as you know, I left the Planning and Zoning Commission, and we had three expression of interest forms, and with the board's approval, I would like to appoint Doug Kornheisel to the vacant position. That's good for one year. Any comments? You've already read the expression of interest forms.

Move approval.

Second. Is there any discussion? I had three members, three people wanted to do it. Okay. No discussion? All in favor of approving the Doug Kornisle appointment, can they keep saying aye?

Aye.

Opposed say nay. Doug Kornisle it is. No bid openings.

City Manager. Thank you, Mayor. Just a couple of items. Before your next regular City Council meeting on August 3rd, I just want to look at a couple announcements here. The bid board number one, that is the board that works with the $2 per night occupied hotel room fee. They meet about three to four times a year. They'll be meeting on Monday, July 27th at 3 p.m. in the Powell Conference Room here at City Hall. The Planning and Zoning Commission will meet next Monday, July 27th, here at City Hall. Right now we have two items on their agenda. One is a report on utility capacity, kind of how our utilities sit, and then also they will have a reorganizational meeting, as they do have now nine members through the last action of the City Council. And they are short a vice chairperson right now, so they'll have that reorganizational as one of their items next time. We announced earlier Tuesday, July 28th would be the groundbreaking for the Light and Power building. I will just say stay tuned on that. We realized after we did all that that that is election day and so there might be some conflict with some of our members being able to participate. So we are Wait for more information on that as to what that new date might be. And just reminding the City Council that you'll have a special meeting on Thursday, July 30th at 5.30 here in the Powell Conference Room. USD Professor Dr. Matt Fairholme will lead the orientation session for the City Council that night. A couple other items, the mausoleums at Bluffview Cemetery, the Historic Preservation Commission received funding from the state through the CLG program, and they did a, it's quite interesting to read, a study of the mausoleums at Bluffview Cemetery. That is now being nominated, those mausoleums, to be on the National Register of Historic Places. As part of that process, before the State Historical Board of Trustees can consider that nomination, which they're going to do on Friday, September 11th, there's an opportunity for local public comment. So we'll accept comments on those mausoleums being nominated through Friday, August 21st, and then after that we send any comments off to the state for their meeting in September. And then included in your packet was one raffle notification. The Eagles will be selling 50-50 raffle tickets from August 17th of this year to January 24th of 2027. Those raffle tickets are $5 each. Drawings will take place on October 18th, December 6th, and January 24th. The estimated prize ranges from $200 to $1,000, depending on how many tickets are sold, obviously. Half of those proceeds will go to the individual, while the other half will go to the charities that the Eagles does support. That's all that I have.

Thank you very much. If there's nothing else for the good of the order, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. A second? Did I hear a second? Oh, thank you very much.

All in favor say aye.

Aye. Opposed, nay. We are adjourned.