[0:04] [Music]
[0:12] What's your name?
[0:28] Yeah.
[0:50] Appcate
[0:56] together.
[1:03] My grandma's finger. There must be
[1:39] Hallelujah.
[1:59] celebrate
[2:05] you know
[2:30] Wow. Hallelujah.
[2:46] right
[2:57] now. I love
[3:06] I know. I was going
[3:08] to go.
[3:38] Last
[3:48] [Music]
[3:49] night, how many more?
[4:02] coming.
[4:08] Are you
[4:28] So
[4:36] I
[4:51] not the speakers on.
[5:00] Call this meeting to order. Start with
[5:01] the pledge of
[5:04] allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the
[5:08] United States of America and to the
[5:11] republic for which it stands. One
[5:14] nation indivisible with liberty and
[5:17] justice for all. Next is invocation by
[5:20] first Lutheran.
[5:25] Okay, roll call.
[5:29] Stabers here. Goldmer here. Hi. Mard
[5:33] here. Jack here. Here. Sharks here.
[5:38] Here.
[5:39] All right, we have a quorum. Approval of
[5:41] consent agenda items. Items appearing on
[5:43] the consent agenda may be removed by a
[5:44] city council member for discussion. the
[5:46] beginning of the formal agenda items.
[5:53] Move to approve. Second. Motion by Mr.
[5:55] Mardle. Second by Mr. Goldhammer. Any
[5:57] further discussion?
[6:00] Would anyone in the audience like to
[6:01] discuss anything on the consent
[6:05] agenda? Okay. Roll call. Doer. Hi. Hi.
[6:11] Barington. Hi. Baskkey. Hi. Charts. Hi.
[6:14] Smith. Hi. Sabers. Hi, Gold Arm. I
[6:19] motion carries. Citizens input. If you
[6:21] need to address the mayor and members of
[6:22] city council on an item that was not on
[6:23] the agenda, excluding personnel items,
[6:25] please come forward to the podium and
[6:26] state your name and your concern.
[6:27] Presentations are limited to three
[6:29] minutes. Items will be considered, but
[6:31] no action will be taken at this time.
[6:33] Would anyone like to address the
[6:34] council?
[6:38] I'm Karen Pulley from
[6:40] the Mitchell Food Pantry and I'm here to
[6:43] report on the Easter ham dinner
[6:47] giveaway. Uh we had planned to give away
[6:51] 200 meals and then on the Friday before
[6:55] we got 42 hams from a donation and so
[6:59] then we said we had to do 242
[7:02] boxes which we did. I think it all went
[7:05] well because I didn't see any uniform
[7:08] policemen there.
[7:09] So,
[7:12] um, we included in each box besides the
[7:16] ham and a gallon of white milk was 5 lbs
[7:18] of fresh potatoes and 2 lbs of fresh
[7:20] carrots, three lbs of fresh apples, a
[7:23] pound of fresh onions and two cans of
[7:24] green beans, a package of dinner rolls
[7:26] or a loaf of bread, a pound of butter or
[7:29] margarine, a dozen eggs, a package of
[7:31] cookies, Pepsi, and then a package of
[7:33] pinto beans with a recipe so they can
[7:35] make bean and ham soup.
[7:39] The value of this meal purchased locally
[7:42] with items that are on sale was
[7:45] $62.39. The 242 households came in 190
[7:49] cars and those households included 133
[7:53] seniors, 268 adults, 249 kids for 650
[7:58] people that got an Easter dinner. Most
[8:02] came from Mitchell, but some come from
[8:04] Alec, Artisian, Delmont, Ethan, Fulton,
[8:07] Mount Vernon, Olivet, Barkston, Zou
[8:10] Falls, Wagner, and White Lake. The 34
[8:14] volunteers donated 100 man hours on just
[8:17] that day to get the event done. So,
[8:21] thanks to Dan for paying for our
[8:23] fees, for Josh for Thanksing the lot,
[8:27] the council for approving it, and all
[8:29] the volunteers who helped make this
[8:31] happen.
[8:33] Thank you to you, Karen. Thank you.
[8:43] Anyone
[8:46] else? Hello everybody. Uh my name is
[8:48] Christian and I just am here uh to
[8:51] formally introduce myself as the
[8:53] executive director over at the Mitchell
[8:54] Prehistoric Indian Village. Um and
[8:57] actually talk about just a little bit of
[8:58] what we have going on. Um we a little
[9:01] bit about myself. Like I said, my name
[9:03] is Christian. I'm originally from
[9:04] Houston, Texas, and I have moved myself
[9:07] up here to be the director. And we have
[9:08] a lot of exciting things going on. Um
[9:10] one, we just recently went through a
[9:12] name change to include the term
[9:13] archaeological in our name. We think
[9:15] that's going to draw a lot more visitors
[9:17] into our site. And as part of our
[9:20] conversations we've been having with the
[9:21] Chamber of Commerce, um we've been
[9:23] talking about how to make Mitchell a
[9:24] stayover versus a stopover site. And we
[9:27] believe that the Mitchell site is really
[9:29] an integral part in that. On average,
[9:31] people spend about an hour and 20
[9:33] minutes over at the village. And um we
[9:36] really think that is important for again
[9:38] just kind of bringing in a little bit
[9:40] more revenue and a little bit more
[9:41] business into the city of Mitchell as a
[9:43] whole. Um, we also have set a record
[9:46] number of school tours for this month,
[9:48] which we continue to offer for free due
[9:50] to the generosity of um, you know,
[9:53] funding from people like y'all. Um, we
[9:56] also are going to have our archaeology
[9:58] awareness days on June 14th. Um, our day
[10:02] on June 14th and we encourage everybody
[10:04] to come out and see it. We're going to
[10:05] have a lot of fun stuff going on. And
[10:08] yeah, just kind of wanted to kind of
[10:09] humbly present myself as the new
[10:11] executive director and formally invite
[10:13] all y'all to come out and get a personal
[10:15] tour for myself, take you all onto the
[10:17] the floor of the actual dig site itself,
[10:19] and just kind of tell you guys a little
[10:20] bit more about what we're looking to do
[10:21] to update and modernize the village um
[10:23] and really kind of proceed with a new
[10:25] vision. So, thank you guys for letting
[10:27] me come up here and hopefully we'll see
[10:29] you guys over at the village soon. Thank
[10:31] you. Thank you.
[10:39] Good evening, council. My name is
[10:40] Johanna and I am with the Mitchell
[10:42] Chamber and Convention and Visitors
[10:43] Bureau. So, I wanted to come talk to you
[10:46] guys tonight because this week is the
[10:47] 2025 National Travel and Tourism Week.
[10:50] Um, so I wanted to talk to you about
[10:51] some ways that we're celebrating and
[10:53] some important stats when it comes to
[10:55] tourism. So, first off, we are um
[10:57] lighting up the Corn Palace red. If you
[10:59] didn't know, red is the national color
[11:01] that represents tourism. and then visit
[11:04] Mitchell will be doing some social media
[11:05] promotions throughout the week as well.
[11:08] And just a reminder as we move forward
[11:10] um through these stats, tourism is the
[11:12] second largest economic driver in South
[11:14] Dakota under agriculture. So tourism is
[11:16] very important to our state and to our
[11:18] city. So starting off with some
[11:20] statewide numbers, in 2024 we had 5.1
[11:23] billion in visitor spending in the state
[11:25] and that generated $399 million in state
[11:29] and local taxes. And then um kind of
[11:31] breaking it down into Davidson County. I
[11:33] know I've shared these numbers before,
[11:34] but I wanted to reiterate. We had $118.4
[11:38] million in visitor spending, which is a
[11:40] 3.3% growth from 2023, which had
[11:44] 114.6 million. So thatund 118.4 million
[11:49] generated $9.1 million in state and
[11:53] local taxes. And this is money spent by
[11:55] people who live 50 miles and farther out
[11:57] of Mitchell. They come here, spend their
[11:59] money, and it helps generate tax revenue
[12:01] for us from people that don't actually
[12:02] live in Mitchell. So, we market to both
[12:05] regional and outofstate uh groups, and
[12:08] we target people who we know are
[12:09] potential visitors to the area. And all
[12:12] of this data we get from Travel South
[12:14] Dakota. It's all available online. If
[12:15] you go to their economic dashboard, you
[12:17] can view all of this data on there. Um,
[12:19] and Travel South Dakota, if you didn't
[12:21] know, it's our state tourism office. So,
[12:22] we work very closely with them. Um, and
[12:25] just to wrap it up, I just think these
[12:26] numbers show how important travel and
[12:28] tourism is to our state. And I want to
[12:30] thank the council and the mayor for
[12:31] supporting um, what we do. Thank you.
[12:35] Thank
[12:37] you. Anyone else? We got a long list
[12:39] today.
[12:46] Greetings. I'm Elizabeth with Mitchell
[12:48] Mainstream Beyond. And what a week we've
[12:50] had in Mitchell. Uh, if you didn't know,
[12:52] the dessert rumble is happening actively
[12:55] right now and that delicious dessert
[12:58] competition is happening until the end
[13:00] of the month and you can use the
[13:01] Everything Mitch app to find the
[13:02] participating businesses. On a in last
[13:05] weekend in April, we had ladies day out
[13:08] and it was a record. We had 41
[13:10] participating businesses. We hadund
[13:13] sorry
[13:15] 1,832 entries this year, which is two
[13:18] over 200 more than we had last year. I
[13:21] had the joy of going through every
[13:22] single one and seeing where they came
[13:25] from. They came from anywhere from the
[13:27] farthest one away was Phoenix, Arizona
[13:29] who was just visiting family to Hiron.
[13:32] We had a couple from the outskirts of
[13:34] Minnesota. Sou Falls had a lot. And then
[13:36] a lot of our rural communities that
[13:38] surround us came. So that's a very large
[13:41] impact. We did ask the small business
[13:43] owners what their average sale was that
[13:44] day. And it ranged from anywhere from
[13:46] $25 throughout the whole day to an
[13:48] average of $100 to a couple kitchens
[13:50] getting sold at our bigger real. So like
[13:53] this average is all over the board. But
[13:55] if we just take that
[13:58] $1,800$1,832 just times $25 as an
[14:01] average. should say they fueled up their
[14:02] tanks to go home, which a tank of gas
[14:04] does not cost $25 unfortunately, but it
[14:07] was a $45,000 $800 a
[14:11] $45,800 economic impact of taxable
[14:14] revenue from that one event of ours. We
[14:16] also had first Fridays last week where I
[14:19] got I was a little busy down with Hope,
[14:21] so I didn't get to see the crowd. I got
[14:23] told it was packed. It was fun. And then
[14:25] it got a little chilly, but it's okay.
[14:27] It was our first one. And then if you
[14:29] were at Hope, I really appreciated
[14:31] seeing you guys in the crowd. It's
[14:32] amazing the turnout we had with Dakota
[14:34] News Now, our local news, and the whole
[14:37] community that came out to support it.
[14:39] Um, I really appreciate you guys letting
[14:41] us do this. Hope is a beacon of a
[14:43] brighter future for Mitchell. And I am
[14:46] happy to keep this legend alive and keep
[14:48] going forward as Mitchell mainstream
[14:49] beyond. Elizabeth, do we have any
[14:51] pictures of hope for these guys to see
[14:53] because it's so impressive? Do we can we
[14:56] pull that up? Not off the cuff, but if
[14:59] we go to Mitchell Mainstream Beyond on
[15:01] Facebook, uh you can find it on there.
[15:04] Um some background real quick. Hope is
[15:06] over 10 ft tall. It is based off of the
[15:09] Hope grain from World War II where a
[15:11] South Dakota farmer, Edgar S. McFaten,
[15:13] crossbreed two germinations of wheat to
[15:15] make it rust resistant. And it led to
[15:18] our nation not starving. And it also
[15:19] honors our agriculture history here in
[15:21] Mitchell as who we are. And it ties to
[15:25] our roots. And there's a deeper story
[15:27] that Clark has with this as well.
[15:29] There's interactive elements. Tell them
[15:30] who Clark is. Clark Markinick is a
[15:32] nationally renowned blacksmith artist.
[15:34] He has pieces coast to coast, a lot of
[15:37] pieces in Sou Falls. And he's actually
[15:39] becoming international, internationally
[15:41] known. There's books written after him.
[15:43] And we have the joy of Mitchell being
[15:46] his home. He's this kind of a hidden gem
[15:49] diamond in the rough that is passionate
[15:51] about bringing art to his hometown
[15:52] Mitchell so that the next generations
[15:55] have a way to express themselves and ma
[15:58] main street has all and whole town of
[16:00] Mitchell we hope to grow it to there's
[16:02] different mediums of art there's fine
[16:04] art and sculpture art and then there's
[16:06] different murals of art there you go
[16:07] that's kind of a from Mitchell Republic
[16:09] there I think they had like 33 pictures
[16:11] that they were so grateful to take if
[16:13] you click
[16:16] It's okay if you scroll back. That's
[16:18] okay. That's a good one right there. You
[16:19] can see it behind Clark's head. It all
[16:22] the interactive pieces on it mean
[16:24] something to the story. And as we get
[16:26] that story board, the my big white
[16:27] board's still out there, very aware. But
[16:30] um there is going to be a storyboard
[16:31] between that bench and the hope statue
[16:34] where it's going to have all the drone
[16:35] footage and the whole story with a QR
[16:37] code with Clark's voice over of what the
[16:40] statue means, but also leave it open
[16:42] open to interpretation for those to find
[16:44] their own meaning. You might relate to
[16:46] the mouse that's at the bottom of the
[16:48] statue just getting the scraps from
[16:49] harvest or you might be the bird that's
[16:51] constantly on the hunt for that morning
[16:52] that early bird gets the worm. There's
[16:55] different pieces. There's hidden
[16:56] ladybugs in it. And he asked me like,
[17:00] "Liz, what what bug did I miss?" And I
[17:02] was like, "I kind of like butterflies."
[17:04] And he's like, "Ah, it's too late for a
[17:05] butterfly." But he did build a
[17:07] crystallis on the back of it so that it
[17:09] can transform into a
[17:12] bigger bigger thing on Main Street and
[17:14] keep that dream growing and grow more
[17:16] art on Maine. And then tell them about
[17:19] the hope um award that you plan. Yeah,
[17:22] absolutely. So, the Hope Spirit Award
[17:24] will be for years to come. It's going to
[17:26] kick off this year. It's going to be
[17:28] open to anybody in Mitchell to nominate
[17:30] anyone. I'm still building the website,
[17:32] so give me a moment. It is going to be a
[17:34] one-pager where you can nominate someone
[17:36] that inspired hope in the Mitchell
[17:39] community. And I'm envisioning a one one
[17:42] question, one pager because I'm going to
[17:44] probably be the one that reads through
[17:45] them all. And then the foundation board
[17:47] will come back together and read through
[17:48] the applications. And then we'll select
[17:50] that one person that inspired Hope and
[17:51] Mitchell that year. And it will just
[17:53] keep going. And that uh the nominee will
[17:55] receive a 10-in version of the 10-ft
[17:58] statue of hope at the annual Mitchell
[18:00] Mains from Beyond Chamber and
[18:01] Development Corporation award banquet
[18:03] along with our Mitchell Main Street
[18:05] Champion
[18:06] Award. Yeah. I just have to tell you how
[18:10] proud I was that night of you and the
[18:12] board and the artist and maybe just
[18:15] mention who the sponsors were just.
[18:18] Yeah, absolutely. That's a great point.
[18:20] I have technically no. I have been
[18:22] meaning to jump in
[18:23] because Okay, never mind. Yep. All good.
[18:26] We appreciate our sponsors and you can
[18:28] figure it out on your own. Yes,
[18:30] absolutely. All is
[18:32] well. Yep. All is good. Thank you guys.
[18:35] Okay. Thank you. All right. Does anyone
[18:38] else wish to address the council?
[18:51] Okay, this is my third time. You know,
[18:52] three times a charm, I guess. My name is
[18:55] Tom Fergen. Uh we were able to buy a lot
[18:58] number one on India Head Development
[19:01] 1976 with a beautiful view of the lake
[19:03] and still have that beautiful
[19:05] view. The city council speaks for the
[19:08] people of Mitchell. I was
[19:10] told if you cannot trust someone 100%
[19:13] you're going to have a
[19:15] problem. I am concerned about those who
[19:18] limited income can afford to buy a
[19:19] fishing license who spend time fishing
[19:22] Lake Mitchell as a way to
[19:24] relax. These are the same people who do
[19:26] not have the income to go on extended
[19:28] vacation outside of South
[19:30] Dakota. I am concerned that these people
[19:32] today who are catching fish will not
[19:34] have any fish to catch once the lake is
[19:36] drained. fish habitat will be destroyed.
[19:39] Some are estimating it'll be 10 years
[19:41] after lake has been dredged before
[19:43] they're fish to catch in the lake again.
[19:46] I am concerned about lakefront houses
[19:48] that are up for sale
[19:49] today. Many bring their grandchildren
[19:52] here to jet ski enjoy fishing from the
[19:54] retaining
[19:55] walls. I am concerned about knowing fire
[19:58] steel creek stars from western spring
[20:00] flows into Lake Mitchell. Cattle
[20:02] drinking out of the fire steel creek. I
[20:04] am concerned there will still be the
[20:06] blue allergy after the lake is
[20:08] drenched. I am concerned. Why you
[20:10] draining the lake first and then asking
[20:12] for bids? Aren't you putting yourself at
[20:14] the mercy of the
[20:16] contractors? Last year we had 10in rain
[20:18] in June. Our neighbors deck was covered
[20:20] with a blue algae film. Years ago we
[20:23] extended the height of the spillway. I
[20:25] biologists told me we should have kept
[20:28] the height at the level it was at so
[20:30] when you get a rain you can wash the
[20:32] algae out of the lake. Last June after
[20:34] tennis raid the lake was in good shape
[20:36] because a lot of blue algae washed
[20:39] out. I'm concerned about those who have
[20:42] 100% certainty in this project that the
[20:45] dredging project will will work out as
[20:47] predicted on paper. The engineer
[20:49] convince this project what we need. If
[20:51] mother nature does not give us if mother
[20:53] give us a drought when will lake
[20:55] bitchell be at a current level? Thank
[20:57] you for your listen to me. I appreciate
[20:59] it.
[21:00] Thank you. Can I give out copies of
[21:02] this? Sure. hand them to Mike and Hill.
[21:04] Okay, just pass. I'll keep one for
[21:05] myself for good measure or
[21:07] two. Would anyone else like to address
[21:09] the council? I got one. Thank you.
[21:18] Okay. Next is mayor and city council
[21:20] discussion items.
[21:23] I have one now. Now you have unlimited
[21:25] time. Thanks for the thanks for the tip,
[21:28] um, Justin. So, I'd like to have
[21:30] Elizabeth from Mitchell Main Street come
[21:32] back up because there are just a few
[21:34] items of unfinished business that I'd
[21:36] like her to tell you about about Hope.
[21:39] Maybe talk a little bit about the
[21:41] sponsorships because I think that's
[21:42] really an important aspect of this.
[21:44] Yeah, absolutely. So, we had the
[21:48] foundation sponsors that helped
[21:49] immensely make this happen, which was
[21:50] Plains Commerce Bank, Clockworks, and
[21:53] the Adamos family. We had some new era
[21:55] sponsors as well which were the Mitchell
[21:57] Area Charitable Foundation and the
[21:59] Mitchell Area Alliance Club. And then we
[22:01] had some smaller donations from Bugleman
[22:03] Family Insurance. Uh the city of
[22:05] Mitchell helped us greatly with the
[22:06] bumpouts and making this possible.
[22:09] Mquar, what's the engineering names? Joe
[22:12] Mcquaryy Engineering that helped us make
[22:14] the bumpouts possible. There's a lot of
[22:16] entities that came together to make
[22:19] Mitchell's Main Street that next step
[22:20] into the future and revitalizing it down
[22:23] there. One of the things I wasn't aware
[22:26] of until I saw your post was the process
[22:28] that it took to put it in place, which
[22:30] was really impressive. Do you want to
[22:32] just talk a little bit about that? So,
[22:33] Northwestern Energy, uh, they have
[22:36] building a brighter future in our
[22:37] community, and they reached out and
[22:40] asked if they could if we could use a
[22:42] hand installing this 500 lb statue,
[22:44] which they have the right tools to make
[22:46] that a very easy job, thankfully. So,
[22:48] they had seven of their team members out
[22:49] there with a very large truck. Don't
[22:52] hold me to what that large truck was
[22:54] called right now, but they picked it up.
[22:56] We got a great photo opportunity with
[22:58] Hope in the middle of the air with the
[23:01] Corn Palace in the background. And
[23:02] thanks to their equipment, we were able
[23:04] to install it smooth as butter that day.
[23:07] It was just a great opportunity. And we
[23:09] did install 24 hours ahead of time to
[23:10] make sure we had a a buffer and have a
[23:13] time to
[23:14] react. And I just want to add that this
[23:17] is hopefully just the first sculpture
[23:19] that this is one of many that will come
[23:21] in the future and we'll have a sculpture
[23:23] walk um that will adorn our Mitchell and
[23:26] historic correct um Main Street, the
[23:28] historic district. So that's exciting.
[23:30] Thank you. Yes. Thank you, ma'am.
[23:36] I just want to I went to Armor the other
[23:39] day to purchase some trees and Joe,
[23:41] correct me if I'm wrong, but they're
[23:42] putting water pipe in the ground.
[23:46] Yeah, they probably had a quarter mile
[23:48] in the ground already. I was surprised.
[23:50] The Randall thing. Yeah. H They were
[23:53] going under 281. Really? Yeah.
[23:57] Huh. Very interesting.
[24:01] Okay. Anything else before we move on?
[24:05] All righty. Board of adjustment.
[24:06] Entertain a motion for the city council
[24:08] to recess and sit as a board of
[24:09] adjustment.
[24:12] So moved. Motion by Mr. Gohammer.
[24:14] Second by Mr. Bathky. All those in favor
[24:17] of the motion say I. I. Same sign.
[24:19] Motion carries. Action to set the date
[24:20] of the board of adjustment hearings
[24:23] 519-25. It's for all of these. Move to
[24:26] set the date. Second. Motion by Mr.
[24:28] Goldhammer. Second by Mr. Murdle. Any
[24:31] further
[24:33] discussion? Would anyone in the audience
[24:34] like to discuss
[24:36] this? All those in favor of the motion
[24:38] say I. I. Post. Same sign. Motion
[24:41] carries. Entertain a motion. Oh,
[24:43] reconvene the city council entertain a
[24:44] motion for the board of adjustment to
[24:46] adjurnn and the city council to
[24:47] reconvene into regular session. So
[24:49] moved. Motion by Mrs. Turks. Second by
[24:51] Mr. Bington. All those in favor of the
[24:53] motion say I. Post. Same sign. Motion
[24:57] carries. Roger. music presentation on
[24:59] visitor
[25:03] spending. Rogers asked us to give us a
[25:06] presentation on visitor
[25:09] spending. Well, mayor and city council,
[25:12] you're up to listen to me one more time.
[25:15] Um, the last time I was here, we had a
[25:18] presentation by the tourist uh
[25:20] organization that indicated that
[25:22] Mitchell had received, I think it was
[25:24] $114 million in
[25:27] um visitor or tourist revenue, which was
[25:30] a tremendous shock to me. And I had
[25:33] worked with Dr. Brown on the study in
[25:37] 2012 which analyzed the Mitchell
[25:40] economic situation and he made it very
[25:43] very clear that we had a tremendous pull
[25:46] factor meaning we had shoppers that came
[25:49] from Platt Winter Chamberlain and do
[25:53] their daily shopping or weekly shopping
[25:56] in Mitchell and we also had some
[25:59] tourists and those were two totally
[26:02] different things. And I think up until
[26:06] the last week, anytime you heard people
[26:09] talk about tourists, they talked about
[26:11] the revenue from both of those
[26:13] organizations instead of, you know, what
[26:16] is the tourist revenue and what is the
[26:19] regional visitors. Um, and
[26:23] I decided I was going to figure out what
[26:26] the difference is. Dr. Brown told us we
[26:28] need to to make sure we count those as
[26:30] different numbers. and they uh should be
[26:34] uh marketed to totally differently
[26:37] too. Um can you real quick just tell
[26:40] everyone what who everyone at home for
[26:42] who Dr. Brown is? Oh, sure. Dr. Brown
[26:44] was the South Dakota state economist for
[26:46] many many years. He was a professor at
[26:48] USD was the I don't know 15 or 20 years
[26:52] was the number one economist in South
[26:55] Dakota. And he had done the study. We
[26:57] hired him at the development I believe
[26:59] hired him and he did a real nice study
[27:02] for us and I made sure all of you guys
[27:04] had that in the last couple meetings
[27:07] because uh I think it's I don't think
[27:10] you can make good decisions without
[27:12] understanding the Mitchell economy and
[27:15] he attempted to explain the Mitchell
[27:17] economy to us and his number one
[27:20] recommendation is we should promote jobs
[27:23] in Mitchell that are high-paying jobs
[27:26] and bring money into Mitchell. He always
[27:29] used the example, if you're trying to
[27:31] improve your economy, you don't
[27:33] necessarily go recruit more barbers, you
[27:36] recruit more businesses that will bring
[27:38] heads to Mitchell and that will
[27:40] automatically bring more barbers to
[27:42] Mitchell. And he had a
[27:44] very elaborate uh presentation and he
[27:48] got all of his numbers from the state
[27:50] website on the labor that is spent in
[27:53] Mitchell. you know, how are the labor
[27:55] dollars that go
[27:57] to that uh people pay their employees in
[28:00] Mitchell in the different categories and
[28:02] you can get that from the state
[28:05] website. Um anyway, I was shocked when I
[28:08] saw that $114 million because I had sat
[28:12] through Dr. Brown's study and he didn't
[28:15] have it anywhere close to that. He had
[28:18] high regional spending but not very high
[28:21] tourist numbers. So, I got my son Cody
[28:24] to write a program and he went to the
[28:27] state website and pulled all of the
[28:30] state numbers for sales for South Dakota
[28:34] for different towns and different
[28:36] categories for a couple years. I think
[28:38] he did 20 23 and 24 or 22 and 23,
[28:43] whatever, whatever was widely available.
[28:45] and he wrote a program where you could
[28:48] go in and figure out what what was uh
[28:52] summer tourist type sales and what was
[28:54] non- tourist type sales. And if you look
[28:58] at uh the sec well the second page of
[29:02] what I handed out to you shows after we
[29:04] did the study I got to thinking well
[29:06] should I should ask chat GPT how we
[29:09] should do this analysis. So I went in
[29:13] and said, "How can I determine the
[29:14] summer tourist economic impact based on
[29:17] just the monthly sales data, which is
[29:20] that was the data we had available." And
[29:22] it told us exactly what to do. And it
[29:25] was effectively take the eight months
[29:28] sales that are not summer, figure that
[29:31] out, take the four month sales that are
[29:34] summer and figure the difference. And
[29:36] that's your summer tourist bump, I'll
[29:39] call it. And uh that's exactly what we
[29:42] had done. I was glad it confirmed what
[29:45] we had done was correct. In the last
[29:47] part of it, it says you can do uh
[29:50] analysis based from year to year and if
[29:53] if there's inflation and stuff, you can
[29:55] take those kinds of things in into
[29:57] account. And I wasn't into getting that
[30:00] accurate. I was looking for a highle
[30:02] number of what does it amount to. So, if
[30:05] you turn to the third sheet, and I I did
[30:08] sit down with Mike from the chamber and
[30:11] Jared and or Jordan and uh Stephanie and
[30:14] showed them the program, and Stephanie's
[30:16] actually got the program, she can run
[30:18] it, but instead of uh running the
[30:21] programs, I did the printouts from it so
[30:23] we could have them more accurate. And
[30:26] you can pick the towns that you want to
[30:28] compare with. And in this case, I picked
[30:31] Brandon Mitchell Chamberlain Heron shows
[30:35] the total
[30:36] sales at the top number 772 million for
[30:41] Mitchell and it shows the population and
[30:44] then it shows the total per capita and
[30:47] this is what's really documenting our
[30:49] pull factor. We're getting uh you know
[30:52] almost twice as much per person as
[30:55] Brandon does. Well, that's because
[30:57] Brandon doesn't have winter plat all the
[31:01] towns, especially to the south and west
[31:03] of us to come shop in Mitchell. And at
[31:08] least when Dr. Brown did the study, that
[31:10] was the highest of any town in South
[31:12] Dakota. I I don't know if it still is,
[31:14] but it's awful close if it's not. So,
[31:17] we're getting twice as many daily
[31:19] shoppers here as we deserve. So, we need
[31:21] to always thank the small towns around
[31:24] South Dakota. And to me, whenever we
[31:26] talk about our great sales tax in
[31:28] Mitchell, we need to give them credit
[31:30] for it because that's where it's coming
[31:34] from. If you look at the baseline,
[31:36] that's the average of the eight months
[31:39] that are not counted as summer months.
[31:42] And in this slide, it's or sheet, it's
[31:44] May through August is summer written at
[31:47] the top. And the baseline is $64 million
[31:51] per month. And then you look at the
[31:54] summer months and it's
[31:58] 64,781 with a difference of $655.
[32:05] $655,000. You look at other cities,
[32:08] Brandon, Chamberlain, Hurin shows the
[32:11] percentage
[32:14] difference, which you can see Mitchell
[32:17] is a slightly higher than her, but not
[32:20] higher than any of the other towns. And
[32:22] the really the percent increase is
[32:24] almost insignificant. This is 34. Now
[32:28] you can do it for a different year.
[32:30] You'll get different numbers, but you
[32:32] always get a very low
[32:34] number. You know, this is $2 million out
[32:37] of $700
[32:40] million. Okay. If you go to the next
[32:43] page, I didn't know what what four
[32:46] months should be counted as summer. So,
[32:47] I did it over again with June through
[32:50] through September as summer months
[32:52] instead of the other ones. And you can
[32:55] see the numbers are different, but uh
[32:57] they're still very very small. In this
[32:59] case, it's n $9 million a
[33:03] year, which is significant, but not
[33:07] compared to 700
[33:10] million. And obviously there are just
[33:13] year-to-year variations that are, you
[33:16] know, minor. But to me, this showed me
[33:19] that thisund was it 114 million from
[33:22] tourists, that's like 90 99% from
[33:26] visitors to the southeast of us that
[33:29] come over and buy their stuff in
[33:31] Mitchell, Chamberlain, Kimble, those
[33:33] kinds of things. A little tiny bit from
[33:36] tourists.
[33:42] is people understand what I did here
[33:44] because I tried to keep it as simple as
[33:46] possible.
[33:48] Um the other thing the program does is
[33:51] it allows us to look at the different
[33:53] categories. How much was hotels, how
[33:55] much was eating, how much was all the
[33:58] different typical categories that would
[34:00] be associated with
[34:01] hotels or tourists. It clearly shows
[34:04] the, you know, hotels going up in the
[34:07] summertime and we actually peak about
[34:11] beginning a hunting season and Dakota
[34:14] Fest, I would say, is probably our our
[34:16] best time for tourists, but it's still a
[34:18] small percentage of what what our
[34:21] economics is here in Mitchell.
[34:26] the I went to after I did this, I said,
[34:29] "Well, how can I be so much different
[34:31] than the state of South Dakota?" I went
[34:34] to their website and I found the little
[34:36] tiny print that says anybody from that
[34:39] travels more than 50 miles or stays
[34:42] overnight, they classify as a visitor,
[34:46] which I don't think if I asked a
[34:48] thousand people in Mitchell, you know,
[34:51] where are tourists coming from? Nobody
[34:53] would tell me
[34:54] Chamberlain. I mean, no, I don't think
[34:56] any of us count that as tourist. We
[34:59] count that as regional visitors. Hell,
[35:02] there's people in South Dakota that go
[35:04] more than 50 miles to school.
[35:09] So, as far as I'm concerned, when the
[35:11] state says, you know, they're the second
[35:14] largest, tourism is the second largest
[35:17] industry in South Dakota, that's totally
[35:20] false as far as what the general concept
[35:23] of what a tourist
[35:25] is. You know, from their standpoint,
[35:27] every every time you go to Sou Falls,
[35:29] everything you buy is counted is counted
[35:31] as tourist revenue. I I don't think any
[35:34] of us assume that.
[35:37] Dr. Brown was very clear in his study,
[35:40] you need to differentiate between the
[35:42] two of them because they're totally
[35:43] different, a tourist and a regional
[35:47] visitor.
[35:50] So, what do you think is the
[35:52] second leading in in South Dakota?
[35:55] Uhhuh. Revenue generator. Oh,
[35:59] I think you'd probably just see what
[36:00] number three is and then call that
[36:02] number. Yeah, I don't know what it is,
[36:03] but it's whatever number three is, but
[36:06] they're not advertising that they're the
[36:08] number three where the state department
[36:11] of transportation or they're advertising
[36:14] that as the big deal. And I I think it's
[36:18] totally false. I don't think there's
[36:20] anybody that would count when you go to
[36:22] Sou Falls and buy something that you're
[36:25] a
[36:28] tourist. And as I say, Dr. Brown who was
[36:31] a state economist for 20 years made it
[36:34] very very clear that you need to
[36:36] differentiate between a regional visitor
[36:38] and a tourist because they're to two
[36:41] totally different
[36:45] things. Um I have a quote on page three
[36:50] that I thought was very appropriate. If
[36:52] you start fooling your shareholders, you
[36:54] will soon believe your own baloney and
[36:57] be fooling yourself as well. And I think
[37:00] that's where we're at. That's a quote
[37:02] from Warren
[37:05] Buffett. I then uh the reason I think
[37:09] it's really
[37:10] important is we in Mitchell have heard
[37:14] how terrorism drives our economy for the
[37:17] last 50
[37:18] years. Dr. Brown was an attempt to try
[37:21] to get that down to what really drives
[37:24] our economy. and he told us I think over
[37:27] the last 20 years we forgot and a lot of
[37:30] people have changed and uh
[37:33] understandably but if you don't
[37:35] understand what drives your economy you
[37:37] as councilman mayor can't make good
[37:40] decisions of how to improve our economy
[37:43] and the people when they have to vote on
[37:45] something they've got incorrect
[37:48] information because they think tourism
[37:50] is the most important thing in Mitchell
[37:53] and it just isn't
[37:57] Um, anybody disagree with me here
[38:00] because or I I gladly research more or
[38:03] figure out something else. So I I guess
[38:05] my question for you
[38:07] is whether I mean I can see that you're
[38:10] drawing a difference between 114 million
[38:13] and 9 million. That's that's a little
[38:15] bit different, right? So what's the
[38:16] bottom line for you? Like you don't
[38:18] think we should be giving any uh don't
[38:21] any money to these subsidy requests. Is
[38:23] that what you're saying? Subsidy
[38:25] requests have nothing to do with this.
[38:27] So what's your tell me when you're
[38:29] making significant dollar decisions on
[38:32] what we should do to improve Mitchell,
[38:34] the tourist is a tiny little part of
[38:37] that compared to other things in
[38:39] Mitchell. And I went ahead and I got
[38:43] Cody to write some more programs for me
[38:46] to go into the state labor uh website
[38:50] where they have all the labor dollars by
[38:52] different categories which is the
[38:54] statistics Dr. Brown used when he
[38:56] analyzed Mitchell. So he went into that
[39:00] and we generated a bunch more
[39:02] information.
[39:08] Um, I took three the three I think uh
[39:12] biggest categories out of that. There's
[39:15] about 12 or 13 categories. I didn't
[39:17] think we'd want to look at all 13 of
[39:19] them. So, I took the I think the top
[39:21] three. And the first category was
[39:25] professional, scientific, and technical
[39:27] services. That's a a labor category that
[39:30] labor dollars are being put into in this
[39:33] county. And that category by itself went
[39:38] up
[39:39] 94 employees from 2020 to 2023. In 2024,
[39:45] data wasn't available or isn't available
[39:49] yet. The wages for that category went up
[39:53] from 27 million to 51 million. So that's
[39:58] like 10 times as important as the entire
[40:00] tourist industry in Mitchell because
[40:03] those are all labor dollars that get
[40:05] spent. Those people get it in their
[40:07] paycheck and they go buy things with it.
[40:10] Now there's a few that save some money
[40:12] but not a
[40:15] lot. Average wage in that category went
[40:19] from 60
[40:21] 60,528 to 94,484.
[40:26] Well, that's exactly what Dr. Brown told
[40:28] us we should do is recruit those kinds
[40:31] of people to
[40:34] Mitchell. And if if we recruited, let's
[40:37] say in the next couple years,
[40:39] another 100 people, well, that's another
[40:42] 50 million. And it's 50 million every
[40:44] year. It's not a one time. It's 50
[40:46] million every year once they're here.
[40:49] That's what's going to drive our economy
[40:51] and make it better. So I took the the
[40:54] other place I think we've done well in
[40:57] is construction. If you look at
[41:00] Mitchell, we've got Muth Construction
[41:02] and Chromemer and many other contractors
[41:04] in Mitchell. In that category alone,
[41:07] we've increased 181
[41:11] employees, a total of $18 million. So
[41:14] just in the construction side, we're two
[41:17] or three times what the tourist income
[41:21] was. So if we could go out and get Muth
[41:24] to expand, Crumber to expand or other
[41:27] companies like that to come in over the
[41:29] next few years, that's another $20
[41:32] million to our
[41:34] economy. The third category was healthc
[41:38] care. This one has an increase of 32
[41:41] people, but it has a lot of them. I
[41:44] mean, it had 19 thou or 1916 people and
[41:47] went to 1948 people. 32 wages went up 14
[41:52] million a year in
[41:57] healthcare. So if you look at those
[41:59] three places together or three
[42:01] categories together they've added
[42:04] 3077 employees which I figured probably
[42:08] is in the neighborhood of 460 people
[42:11] because they most of them have kids and
[42:13] those aren't counted in the labor side
[42:15] of it.
[42:17] We've improved our income, annual wages
[42:21] by $56
[42:26] million. And the main point here is most
[42:29] of these new employees are oh in their
[42:32] 20s and 30s and they all have small
[42:35] kids. That's the most important thing we
[42:38] can do is make it easier for those
[42:40] people to recruit people that want to
[42:42] live in Mitchell and to keep the people
[42:44] that are here so they want to stay. And
[42:47] that's a quality of life thing. That
[42:50] that's and we've done a pretty good job.
[42:52] I mean, we have great parks. We have a
[42:53] lot of things like that, but we got to
[42:56] continue that. When you talk to these
[42:58] people, you know, and you ask them what
[43:00] do they what do they like about
[43:02] Mitchell? What have we done that's best?
[43:04] Usually the first thing is the bike
[43:06] paths. I mean, that's the number one
[43:08] thing they all say. And by the way, I
[43:11] think every one of you should be talking
[43:13] to 20 of these young people that are in
[43:16] this group and figuring out what they
[43:19] want because when you're spending
[43:21] dollars, you're spending dollars that
[43:22] they're going to have to pay back by the
[43:25] time whatever the big big project is
[43:27] done. We're probably all going to be
[43:28] gone. Somebody else is going to be
[43:30] paying for it. So, we should be doing
[43:33] things that they want, not not
[43:35] necessarily that I would want to see.
[43:43] Roger, when you differentiate between uh
[43:46] tourist and regional spender,
[43:50] um it would it be unwise to not look at
[43:53] what makes regional spender come to our
[43:55] community? Because when I look at when I
[43:58] think about that and you totally agree.
[44:00] No, no question. And I I think we could
[44:04] go down the the list. Walmart,
[44:07] Menard's probably doctors and dentists
[44:11] and those kinds of people that they have
[44:13] to come here and then they shop. Uh what
[44:16] would be next?
[44:22] Restaurant. Yeah, some restaurants. Yep.
[44:24] I mean, I think the thing that I think
[44:26] draws more more people to this town from
[44:29] their surrounding communities is their
[44:30] kids play games here. Baseball,
[44:32] basketball, football. Their kids come to
[44:35] this town, play those games, spend that
[44:37] money. We're going to have dinner in
[44:39] Mitchell. We're going to buy the thing
[44:41] at Walmart, whatever it is. Most of the
[44:43] little towns I'm thinking that are here,
[44:45] like Platt for example, they may come
[44:47] here once a year to play a game, but
[44:49] they're not they're not playing most of
[44:51] their games here, you know.
[44:54] Collectively,
[44:55] well, collectively we Yeah, I'm not
[44:58] against that at all. But I just if I
[45:01] look at it and say, you know, a $100 are
[45:04] spent here, you know, maybe one or two
[45:06] or $3 come from that, but the big ones
[45:10] are the big box stores. And I think
[45:12] Stephanie will probably attest to the
[45:14] fact that like before Heron had their
[45:16] large stores, we had people from Herin
[45:19] coming down. you know, once they got
[45:21] their stores, it reduced. Correct. But
[45:24] also, when we did the Buckton study, we
[45:26] saw the number one sales for sporting
[45:30] goods came from Aberdine, Watertown,
[45:33] Pier, Rapid City, Sou Falls. A lot of
[45:36] those areas that play regional sports
[45:38] here or kids tournament kind of stuff.
[45:41] I'm all for kids tournaments. I'm not at
[45:43] all against it, but when uh I look at,
[45:47] you know, if I went out to Menard's or
[45:49] today or Walmart today and started
[45:52] looking at license plates, I think you'd
[45:54] find a large quantity of them are from
[45:56] the south and west of Mitchell just
[45:59] because those people don't have any
[46:01] other big town to go to. Where where you
[46:03] go east, maybe it's from Alec and a
[46:06] little bit this way. When you get to
[46:08] Salem, those people might be going more
[46:10] to Sou Falls than they are to Mitchell.
[46:12] But they're all they're all good. And
[46:14] I'm I'm not implying that any of these
[46:16] dollars are bad. I just want to know why
[46:20] why they're here. And I want to have an
[46:22] honest view of what tourism is and what
[46:26] a regional spender is. And we need to
[46:30] make sure when we talk about our super
[46:33] good sales tax, we're giving those
[46:35] people credit for it. the the towns, the
[46:38] small towns around
[46:48] Mitchell. And the other the second part
[46:51] of my presentation here, if you go to
[46:54] the next
[46:58] page, can't get my pages separated here.
[47:05] This is a this one here. Okay, this is
[47:09] another printout that I had Cody do for
[47:12] me and it's at the top you can see it's
[47:15] professional scientific and so forth.
[47:17] And then it's got a number of years all
[47:19] the way back from 2014 through now. And
[47:23] if you look at the bottom you can see
[47:25] the average of the total wages in that c
[47:28] or the total wages in that category. say
[47:31] the in 2023 it's 51 million down at the
[47:35] bottom. The next line down is the
[47:37] average wage per week. And this uh 1817
[47:42] equates to 94,000 a year. I wish I'd
[47:46] have done those in per year, but they
[47:49] were weekly
[47:50] numbers. And the bottom one is also very
[47:53] very interesting. It shows the number of
[47:55] people in Mitchell in that category. And
[47:58] you can look back and see the growth
[48:00] over the last few years. And the graph
[48:02] is the green line is the number of
[48:05] employees. The orange line is the
[48:08] average salary. So you can see the last
[48:11] oh six, seven years the salary has went
[48:13] up significantly in that category. And
[48:16] it's mainly just because technical
[48:18] people are hard to hire. So they have to
[48:20] have to pay more to get them to move
[48:21] here.
[48:23] And the blue is the
[48:27] uh total wages that are spent in that
[48:31] category which I thought this was a good
[48:34] way to represent a given type of thing.
[48:36] You can see the wages total amount of
[48:39] wages and number of employees all on one
[48:42] sheet. Next one is the same thing for
[48:46] construction and the last one is the
[48:48] hospitalization or hospital type
[48:52] employees, health care and social
[48:55] assistance. And as I say, there's
[48:57] probably 10 more of these categories.
[49:00] These three were the biggest and most
[49:02] important for I think us. But uh to me,
[49:07] these are the numbers you guys need to
[49:09] be looking at all the time and being
[49:11] figure out how do we how do we make the
[49:13] ones that pay really well
[49:17] grow. I also had a number of studies
[49:20] where I compared us to Hurine and
[49:23] Brookings and so forth
[49:26] that biggest example I guess would be
[49:29] Brookings has I think it's 4,000 people
[49:32] in manufacturing and that's what drives
[49:34] the Brookings economy along with SDSU
[49:38] but they have 4,000 goodaying jobs at 3M
[49:42] I think primarily in in Brookings that
[49:46] kind of sets them aside or different
[49:48] than any of the other towns that I comp
[49:51] compared
[49:56] with. The one I I did notice, I think
[49:59] the number of people that are in food
[50:02] service, what's the title? Food service
[50:04] and
[50:05] hospitality is actually down the last
[50:08] couple years. Um, and I think we can see
[50:11] that by hell, we've got three or four
[50:13] restaurants that aren't going anymore
[50:16] and that's gradually went
[50:20] down. Anyway, my my whole presentation
[50:24] is to convince you that focusing on
[50:27] growing highpaying jobs, which Dr. Brown
[50:30] showed told us we should do and keeping
[50:33] those people in Mitchell that's what is
[50:36] going to determine the success of our
[50:41] economy and when you compare the numbers
[50:44] like 57 million in just increase in the
[50:48] professional thing compared to tourist
[50:52] income not very
[50:57] comparable questions questions. Um, I'd
[51:01] prefer if you had questions or things
[51:03] you don't agree with. I'd just as if you
[51:06] if you don't agree with me or you think
[51:07] I'm totally off on something, I'd like
[51:09] to know that and I'll try to figure out
[51:12] how I can find the actual facts to do it
[51:15] because I I think dealing with facts is
[51:18] the real key. Would you be would you be
[51:20] okay with us sending out the website
[51:23] that you use for the you know where you
[51:25] type in the different towns and you can
[51:26] look at the graphs? It's very
[51:28] interesting on a on a selective basis. I
[51:30] don't I don't think I want to try to
[51:31] support that for hundreds of people. I
[51:34] mean, just with the this group. Oh, this
[51:35] group. No problem. Yeah, Stephanie's got
[51:37] it. She can It's It's on the internet.
[51:40] So, it you know, you just need a link to
[51:42] go to it. And you can't pick any town,
[51:45] but we picked a number of towns. Then I
[51:47] talked to Stephanie and she said, "Well,
[51:49] how about these towns?" So, we added
[51:50] them. And uh you know what what that
[51:54] will allow you to do is also go down and
[51:56] look at like eating and drinking
[51:58] establishments. How much revenue was
[52:01] there from that in the summertime?
[52:03] Motel, how much was there from that in
[52:05] the summertime? And you know, this is
[52:07] looking at the sum of all of them
[52:09] together. Okay. So, one of my questions
[52:13] is why does it matter whether they're
[52:16] the tourists or the people who are
[52:18] visiting our community? Why does it
[52:20] matter whether they're coming 50 miles
[52:24] or 150 miles or 350 miles? Why? As Dr.
[52:29] Brown said, the reason it makes a
[52:30] difference is because you recruit them
[52:33] totally differently. You know, we don't
[52:35] advertise the Corn Palace in order to
[52:37] get people from Kimble to come do their
[52:39] shopping in Mitchell,
[52:42] right? And you know, we need to know why
[52:46] those people are here. and uh the uh
[52:51] concept of a of of a suburb bump or you
[52:54] know that's what tourists typically come
[52:57] in about a four-month period and that's
[53:00] what we're looking for is what what is
[53:02] what are they giving to our community
[53:05] and so and then um one of the other
[53:08] things that occurs to me is when you're
[53:10] talking about people in the health care
[53:12] professions I mean we just recently
[53:15] downgraded our hospital um that
[53:18] certainly certainly not in my humble
[53:20] opinion not ideal for our community. um
[53:23] we outsource this I say we I have
[53:26] nothing to do with it but um the
[53:29] hospital system outsources and it's uh
[53:32] you know the example I always use is
[53:34] that uh Kim Lorenzan was the pathologist
[53:37] and he lived here locally for 30ome
[53:40] years and when he retired they hired
[53:44] they assigned my son who is a
[53:47] pathologist in Sou Falls to be the lab
[53:50] director and the pathologist in Mitchell
[53:52] without bringing bringing one to live
[53:55] here which we've we'd had for all those
[53:57] years. So, and my son would be the first
[53:59] to say I can't give the quality of
[54:04] attention to the hospital that Kim
[54:07] Lorenzan did for 35 years because he
[54:09] lived in Mitchell. I will do what I can
[54:12] but I live in Sou Falls. So, so that
[54:15] whole scenario that you present to us,
[54:19] while compelling, has nothing to do with
[54:22] the people sitting around this table.
[54:23] And it's it's disheartening at best.
[54:26] Yeah. We don't have control of
[54:27] everything. I'm just saying that we
[54:30] could recruit. Yeah. It would be nice if
[54:32] we could recruit more people, but that
[54:34] has nothing to do with the people here
[54:36] in the in the healthc care industry. I
[54:38] can distinctly remember talking about
[54:40] that with Dr. Brown and he pointed out
[54:43] that you know we have a lot of people in
[54:44] Mitchell that go to a doctor in Mitchell
[54:47] and then get referred to a doctor in Sou
[54:48] Falls right for a specialty at the same
[54:52] time there's people in winter and so
[54:54] forth that come to Mitchell to as their
[54:57] first doctor they still may get referred
[54:59] to Sou Falls but if I rem he he had a a
[55:03] concept of location quotient which was
[55:05] kind of the ratio of your how many
[55:07] people are going out of town compared to
[55:09] how many are coming into town for
[55:11] something like that. And healthc care
[55:13] was one of those areas that was about a
[55:14] break even. We were losing as much to
[55:16] Sou Falls as we were gaining from
[55:18] winter. And I'd argue I would argue that
[55:21] that has
[55:24] disproportionately gone to the point
[55:26] that we are referring more Yep. to Sou
[55:29] Falls than we're bringing in. I mean, we
[55:30] have all the tertiary Yep. primary care
[55:34] things here. Well, we have another
[55:36] orthopedic surgeon or orth orthopedics
[55:39] in Mitchell. So that's probably another
[55:41] 10 or 12 people. So we have some I don't
[55:44] know if it's up or down. At the time 12
[55:47] years ago it was slightly positive, not
[55:50] not significantly. The ones that are
[55:52] really good for a community like
[55:55] Mitchell, somebody like Trail King, you
[55:58] know, they don't sell nothing locally.
[56:00] It's 100% money that's coming from Oh,
[56:03] they sold you one. Okay. Almost nothing
[56:06] locally. Be surprised. Well, compared to
[56:09] their total, it's not significant. If
[56:12] you look at like Vantage Point, well,
[56:14] they probably work for Mitchell Telecom,
[56:16] but they work for 500 other people all
[56:19] over the US. So, he called those export
[56:23] industries. They're industries that
[56:25] export their product and bring money
[56:27] into your town. And then there's other
[56:30] businesses like a barber that kind of
[56:32] circulates the money in town. If you
[56:34] want to improve your economy, you
[56:37] improve the companies that do exporting
[56:39] because that's that's the new money that
[56:41] comes to your community. And some
[56:44] businesses are doing both like hospitals
[56:46] or let's say you take pits, they
[56:49] probably do, I'm guessing now 80% of
[56:52] their business outside of Mitchell and
[56:55] 20% of it in Mitchell. And what it
[56:58] amounted to is he had a way to look at
[57:00] the entire state and figure out how many
[57:04] total dollars are being spent in that
[57:07] one area and were we getting a higher
[57:10] percentage than we should based on our
[57:13] population. So if if it's hard to
[57:17] explain but it's a process that figures
[57:21] out how what percentage of a business is
[57:25] exporting and
[57:27] uh there are other businesses I'll say
[57:31] vantage point pretty much all of their
[57:34] business is labor I mean they don't
[57:36] really sell any product so it's 100%
[57:38] labor so whatever they bring into the
[57:41] community a high percentage of it goes
[57:44] to the employees where if you take uh
[57:47] Walmart as an example, I would almost
[57:50] bet if they sell $100 worth of a
[57:53] product, uh maybe $4 stay in Mitchell to
[57:56] pay the employees in Mitchell, you know,
[57:59] $60 go to China to pay for the product.
[58:02] You know, the rest of it goes to
[58:03] corporate to pay for their overheads,
[58:06] but a small amount stays in your local
[58:08] community for labor.
[58:12] And there was a category for retail that
[58:14] showed the number of people that we had
[58:16] in retail. And by the way, this is all
[58:20] based on the state numbers, which I
[58:22] think are far from perfect. You know,
[58:25] they're the best numbers we have, but
[58:28] uh I don't think you can say that is
[58:31] perfect down to the dollar.
[58:34] Yep. Is it okay if I like give a real
[58:36] world scenario? So, so I was invited to
[58:38] Vantage Point to meet with some of their
[58:40] younger my age I guess I don't know if
[58:42] it's younger but 30 to 40year-old uh
[58:45] professionals and ask what they wanted
[58:47] to do and I have a a picture of the list
[58:49] of the things you know and a lot of the
[58:52] stuff is one is indoor playground for
[58:54] kids another one is an indoor park for
[58:56] kids and then another one is an indoor
[58:58] sports complex and that was like 50% of
[59:01] the stuff they asked for you know so I
[59:03] think what Roger's trying to get at is
[59:07] That's, you know, if we want to support
[59:09] those highpaying jobs, you want to
[59:11] support those uh future generations and
[59:15] then this is what they're asking for. So
[59:16] when we make decisions, yeah, you're
[59:19] asking to take this information into
[59:20] consideration heavily, right? Is that
[59:22] the easiest way to say it? That
[59:23] information plus I'm encouraging every
[59:25] one of your council members to go out
[59:28] and talk to those people. Get 10 of them
[59:30] together at some business and ask them
[59:32] what do they want. I spoke at Leadership
[59:35] Mitchell. Mhm. And I will say that one
[59:38] of the one of the big discussions that
[59:40] we had was we need affordable housing.
[59:43] Oh, definitely. So that was a like that
[59:46] was what they wanted was afford was they
[59:48] want to be able to buy themselves a
[59:49] house. Yeah. They want affordable
[59:51] housing, economical daycare and good
[59:54] jobs. Yep. And and something to do for
[59:58] their kids, you know, the indoor
[1:00:00] facility to play in the wintertime.
[1:00:02] Summertime, we got a lot of things to
[1:00:04] do. Wintertime is pretty tough if you,
[1:00:07] you know, got a 5-year-old kid. One
[1:00:10] thing I just thought of on the way down
[1:00:12] here. And I drove past the rec center
[1:00:16] and it it always bothers me when I drive
[1:00:18] past somebody like the rec center and
[1:00:21] there's nobody in it, even if it's
[1:00:23] open. Maybe we should consider that it's
[1:00:26] free. You don't have any charge to go to
[1:00:29] the rec center and we get, you know,
[1:00:31] five times as many people there doing
[1:00:34] things. The swimming pool, we got a
[1:00:36] great swimming pool. When I look at it,
[1:00:39] a high percentage of time there's nobody
[1:00:41] in it. That that's not something I like
[1:00:44] to see. I like to see people using our
[1:00:48] facilities. One, not to discredit what
[1:00:51] you're saying, but one interesting thing
[1:00:52] is I feel like what's the number Kevin
[1:00:54] Nelson? How many people are members of
[1:00:56] the rec center? It's like 4,500. Yeah,
[1:00:59] it's great. Which is like Yep. That's a
[1:01:01] big number. So, pretty interesting. Was
[1:01:03] that the number right, Kevin? We should
[1:01:04] encourage people that can't afford the
[1:01:06] rec center to I think it's 37 to 38 be
[1:01:10] able anyway because we got a lot of
[1:01:12] people that can't afford it. And if it
[1:01:16] was overcrowded, obviously you you raise
[1:01:18] the rate to lower it. And and I don't
[1:01:21] know the real numbers, but just when by
[1:01:23] driving by it doesn't look like it's
[1:01:26] overcrowded, but did you hear that we do
[1:01:28] have grants for people that can't afford
[1:01:29] it? Yeah, but yeah. Do we are we having
[1:01:33] a significant number of those?
[1:01:36] That statistic I have. Yeah, that would
[1:01:38] be interesting to know because are we
[1:01:40] are we uh marketing that, right? Are we
[1:01:43] telling people about it? Mhm. But and I
[1:01:46] say that was just something I noticed
[1:01:48] coming in here. I drove past it and I
[1:01:51] thought, well, hell, it'd be great if
[1:01:52] there was 100 kids playing in there
[1:01:54] tonight, but didn't look like there
[1:01:58] was. Okay. Anything else? We're good.
[1:02:02] Appreciate your time. Thank you.
[1:02:04] Listening.
[1:02:09] Okay.
[1:02:12] Action to approve application of
[1:02:13] Bernie's LLC doing business as Barney
[1:02:15] Sports Bar and Grill for special event
[1:02:17] malt beverage in South Dakota Farm Wine
[1:02:20] license located at Cadwell Park for June
[1:02:22] 14th, 2025 for the first annual Blernies
[1:02:25] Amateur Baseball Classic. Move to
[1:02:27] approve. Second. Motion by Mrs. Turks,
[1:02:30] second by Mr. Mardle. Further
[1:02:33] discussion?
[1:02:34] Would anyone in the audience like to
[1:02:36] discuss this?
[1:02:39] All those in favor of the motion say I.
[1:02:40] I oppose same sign. Motion carries.
[1:02:43] Action to approve requested partial
[1:02:45] closure of alley joining sixth and
[1:02:47] seventh between Maine and Raleigh
[1:02:48] streets. Mr. Shrader. Yep. Mr. Mayor,
[1:02:51] council, a request was brought to
[1:02:53] council to partially close the alley
[1:02:54] joining 7th and 6th between Maine and
[1:02:56] Raleigh streets on at the November 4th
[1:02:59] 24 council meeting. Council asked staff
[1:03:02] to provide uh closure ideas for future
[1:03:04] consideration. Uh so tonight I am going
[1:03:07] to show you uh two options. Um, option
[1:03:10] one, uh, is a closure with,
[1:03:14] um, Stephanie, would you mind pulling up
[1:03:17] option one, please? Thank you. Um,
[1:03:19] option one is a closure with strictly
[1:03:22] um, concrete barriers, either um, jersey
[1:03:25] barriers or, uh, we have an example of a
[1:03:27] 2T x 4T retaining wall block. um
[1:03:31] Mitchell Main Street and beyond would be
[1:03:32] partnered with in either option um to
[1:03:35] help us uh decorate um these areas. So
[1:03:39] you can see uh we're still utilizing
[1:03:41] both parking lots. So it shouldn't
[1:03:42] inhibit uh either of the parking lots.
[1:03:45] Um access will be able to flow through
[1:03:48] those um obstacles um freely. So say a
[1:03:52] wheelchair or people would be
[1:03:54] nonobstructed. Um option two, the only
[1:03:57] change is um showing a swing gate uh
[1:04:02] which could be um unchained if needed to
[1:04:05] get through um quicker. Um in either
[1:04:08] option, the plan would be to leave the
[1:04:10] alley uh open during winter months with
[1:04:13] closures initially being from uh
[1:04:16] Memorial Day to Labor Day. We want to
[1:04:19] think about trying this as a trial run
[1:04:21] to see how it goes. Um we like it, we
[1:04:24] can continue. If not, uh, we would not
[1:04:26] do it next year. How's that going to
[1:04:28] work, Joe? That's a one-way alley. We
[1:04:30] going to have them go both directions or
[1:04:32] Yeah, the the parking lots would be
[1:04:34] accessed from from either direction or
[1:04:36] through the um accesses that exist uh
[1:04:40] from either uh six or seven.
[1:04:50] I'm going to move to approve option one.
[1:04:54] Second.
[1:04:55] Uh, now that there's the motion in a
[1:04:58] second, further discussion. Sorry, just
[1:04:59] following the rules. Perfect. Uh, the
[1:05:01] reason I think one is better is because
[1:05:03] we're looking at this potentially as a
[1:05:05] temporary thing that before we put
[1:05:07] something into the ground, it makes
[1:05:08] sense to make sure we like it. And I
[1:05:10] would always be okay with coming back to
[1:05:12] look at option two once we're happy with
[1:05:13] it.
[1:05:15] So, you think the the cement barricades,
[1:05:19] the jersey decorated, whatever are
[1:05:22] better than a swing gate are more
[1:05:24] permanent or less permanent. I think you
[1:05:26] could decorate them and remove them if
[1:05:29] we're if they decide that they want to
[1:05:30] reopen the alley because it didn't work
[1:05:32] or wasn't feasible for what they were
[1:05:33] hoping.
[1:05:35] Are they heavy?
[1:05:37] Yeah.
[1:05:38] So, I mean, for me, I just for the sake
[1:05:42] of argument, I feel like the swing gate
[1:05:43] would be a better alternative to start
[1:05:46] with if you want to see I mean, then you
[1:05:48] have easy access to be able to open and
[1:05:50] close
[1:05:51] them. If if we find if on year one we
[1:05:55] find out that, oh, you know what, this
[1:05:56] is probably not a good idea to have this
[1:05:58] completely blocked off, it would the
[1:05:59] swing. So, the cement barricades are not
[1:06:01] going to be permanent. They're just
[1:06:02] going to be dropped there. And if we
[1:06:03] need to move them, just grab a forklift
[1:06:05] and scooch them off to the side. And the
[1:06:07] swing gates would require uh four
[1:06:09] ballards to be installed which would be
[1:06:12] permanent that if we decided not to go
[1:06:14] forward we we'd have to remove them and
[1:06:15] then patch the concrete. Okay. Well,
[1:06:18] that being said then I agree.
[1:06:22] Okay. Further do the uh one other
[1:06:24] comment. Is the police or fire have a
[1:06:28] preference?
[1:06:29] [Music]
[1:06:31] Uh, Chief Canip, mayor, city council,
[1:06:34] Chief Canipling, I think me and Dan have
[1:06:37] both talked about this. As long as we
[1:06:38] would know what side to respond on if
[1:06:42] we'd had approximate location u as far
[1:06:45] as getting in and out there would not be
[1:06:46] an issue for either one of us.
[1:06:50] Yep. Yeah. And I the only other thing to
[1:06:53] add is I had talked to Joe and said, you
[1:06:55] know, just leave us room to get a cut
[1:06:58] through. Um, we don't typically try to
[1:07:00] fight fires from alleys. We, in fact, we
[1:07:03] do everything possible to not do that.
[1:07:05] So, our only concern would be getting a
[1:07:07] cot in there for if we had a patient in
[1:07:11] that general
[1:07:14] area. Squeaky.
[1:07:18] Okay. Anyone in the audience like to
[1:07:20] discuss
[1:07:23] this? Okay. All those in favor of the
[1:07:25] motion say I. I. Post. Same sign. Motion
[1:07:29] carries. Action to approve agreement A
[1:07:31] 2025-33 water modeling continuing
[1:07:33] service with AE2S. Mr. Shrader.
[1:07:36] Yep. Mr. Mayor, Council, AE2s developed
[1:07:39] a water model of our water main system
[1:07:40] in 2019. We utilize their services to
[1:07:42] complete additional water modeling when
[1:07:44] needed for future projects. They also
[1:07:46] update the water model uh when needed
[1:07:48] after projects. They're assisting with
[1:07:50] review of plans for the Randall Regional
[1:07:53] Row Water to Mitchell project. Uh so
[1:07:55] with that we do recommend approving the
[1:07:57] attach agreement uh for services not to
[1:08:00] exceed 20,000 be hourly as needed.
[1:08:07] I'll move to approve. Motion by Mrs.
[1:08:09] Church to approve. Second. Second by Mr.
[1:08:12] Goldhammer. Any further discussion?
[1:08:15] Would anyone in the audience like to
[1:08:16] discuss
[1:08:18] this? All those in favor of the motion
[1:08:20] say I. I. Post same sign. Motion
[1:08:23] carries. Action approve agreement A
[1:08:25] 2025-34 Hitchcock tennis courts with SPN
[1:08:27] and Associates project number
[1:08:29] 2025-34. Mr. Shrader. Yep. Mr. Mayor,
[1:08:32] Council, uh the city council approved it
[1:08:34] funds during the supplemental budgets
[1:08:36] for a design to replace the older tennis
[1:08:39] courts at Hitchcock Park. The project
[1:08:41] will include eight tennis courts, update
[1:08:43] lighting and fencing, and reconstruction
[1:08:45] of the adjacent parking lot. The tennis
[1:08:47] courts will be designed and bid as
[1:08:49] post-tension construction. The attached
[1:08:51] agreement with SPN will provide design,
[1:08:53] bidding, and full construction phase
[1:08:55] services. At this time, staff is
[1:08:57] recommending authorizing SPN to move
[1:08:59] forward with preliminary and final
[1:09:01] design and bidding phases. Staff
[1:09:03] recommends city council approval for the
[1:09:05] attached agreement from SPN in the
[1:09:06] amount not to exceed 52,700 for the
[1:09:10] services identified in the agreement.
[1:09:12] And I can answer any questions you may
[1:09:13] have and Kevin Nelson can also as well.
[1:09:16] Motion approve. Motion man, Mr.
[1:09:20] Sabers second. Second by Mrs. Turks. I
[1:09:23] got a quick question. They do the
[1:09:25] design. How long does that last for? Is
[1:09:27] that one year, two years, three years?
[1:09:29] So, as long as there isn't any drastic
[1:09:31] changes uh within the park facility, uh
[1:09:35] the design would
[1:09:37] be would be good as long as nothing
[1:09:39] changes. Okay.
[1:09:44] Okay. Further discussion. And this is
[1:09:46] the post tension meaning that we would
[1:09:49] have that in ground
[1:09:52] springs. Okay. And that adds how
[1:09:58] much I want to say in the the pickle
[1:10:02] ball courts percentage wise
[1:10:06] 10%.
[1:10:11] Yeah. So, it's 10 additional 30 25 to
[1:10:15] 40%. Oh, wow. I thought, Joe, I thought
[1:10:18] it was another $60,000 and it was a
[1:10:20] $600,000 project. Yeah. Well, I'm
[1:10:23] talking just weighing the concrete
[1:10:24] versus the I if you give me a few
[1:10:27] seconds going from regular to post
[1:10:29] tension, right? Those were broken out
[1:10:32] separately.
[1:10:35] While he's looking that up, I I want to
[1:10:36] make a comment. And I was asked to make
[1:10:38] a comment about if we move forward with
[1:10:40] doing this eventually, we have no lights
[1:10:44] on the four newest courts. Correct. So
[1:10:46] if we were to take these out in the
[1:10:48] summer months, it would be very
[1:10:51] detrimental to the tennis association
[1:10:53] because of the adult leagues, the rec
[1:10:57] runs that during the day they have some
[1:10:59] kids that give lessons and whatnot. So
[1:11:01] they felt like they should pursue
[1:11:04] getting lights in first on the other
[1:11:07] four courts. The newest four courts, the
[1:11:10] west side, the west four, the newest
[1:11:12] four. So then they would have I don't
[1:11:14] want to say 24-hour day, but there's a
[1:11:16] lot of times you go by there at night
[1:11:17] and there's people playing with the
[1:11:19] lights on. A lot of times the lights get
[1:11:20] left on too long, but they just wanted
[1:11:23] me to make sure that that was possible.
[1:11:25] And I know that you had shared an email
[1:11:27] with the group today, Kevin, and they
[1:11:30] they think like the questions that
[1:11:33] they're asking aren't being answered.
[1:11:35] They're being kind of I don't want to
[1:11:37] say avoided, but a nebulous was the word
[1:11:39] they used. Like they never really get a
[1:11:42] true answer when they ask something. And
[1:11:43] then they want to know like where are
[1:11:45] you at with the school
[1:11:49] district as far as what are they willing
[1:11:51] to help with this? Because this is a
[1:11:53] large project. I mean, and if you looked
[1:11:54] at the engineers estimate, it went from
[1:11:57] 750 to two main. We're doing a parking
[1:12:00] lot and everything all of a sudden. And
[1:12:01] I was like, whoa. So, the first estimate
[1:12:04] was our internal discussion on what we
[1:12:06] thought it would cost to remove and then
[1:12:08] rebuild concrete, thinking we could
[1:12:10] reuse the fencing and not even talking
[1:12:12] about the parking lot and lights. They
[1:12:14] were questionable to start with. There's
[1:12:16] still issues with the lights out there.
[1:12:17] Going back to this actual
[1:12:19] design, Jeff when we were out there with
[1:12:21] him, Jeff McCormack from SPN talked
[1:12:23] about several different things with us
[1:12:25] and we with him. Number one would be
[1:12:27] adding two courts to the end of one
[1:12:29] through four going back to the east. So
[1:12:30] making that a six court complex as as
[1:12:33] one option, adding four to the north
[1:12:35] going over toward the bandell or
[1:12:37] rebuilding the the the eight that are
[1:12:39] there understanding the lights. but
[1:12:41] they're going to um show us for for us
[1:12:44] what a bird's eye view, let's say from
[1:12:46] 100 ft above what all of those things
[1:12:49] could look like without getting into the
[1:12:50] details of designing each of those for
[1:12:52] us. We will then Joe and I and the mayor
[1:12:55] and Stephanie discuss those taking into
[1:12:58] consideration Mitchell Tennis, Mitchell
[1:13:00] High School and all other users to see
[1:13:02] what's going to be the best solution and
[1:13:04] we'll come back with a recommendation on
[1:13:05] what we believe should be the best
[1:13:07] route. We haven't decided internally.
[1:13:10] Okay. I I I knew you hadn't decided
[1:13:11] internally. Just the number was very
[1:13:14] startling to them and to me too. And I
[1:13:17] just I felt like I don't know where uh
[1:13:20] Jeff came up with some of these numbers.
[1:13:22] It was just there just to get to the job
[1:13:25] site 210,000 for mobilization. I'm like
[1:13:28] wow. It's just like these it seems like
[1:13:31] when we do a city bid and I've had
[1:13:33] firsthand doing this. I I got an
[1:13:36] estimate from engineer then I went out
[1:13:37] myself and did it. It's amazing how much
[1:13:39] you can save because you're not being
[1:13:41] involved with the city. I don't think
[1:13:43] we're getting our best foot forward on
[1:13:46] our bids and you know it goes back to
[1:13:49] the light pole bid uh on corner of
[1:13:52] seventh here by rejecting rebidding it.
[1:13:54] We got a better bid and I think it was
[1:13:56] kind of you know we have more biders I
[1:13:57] think too at the time. So, and I know we
[1:14:00] had a lot of pickle ball bids. So, I'm
[1:14:01] I'm excited to put it out to bids to see
[1:14:04] if we can afford to do it or if we can
[1:14:06] move forward and what kind of money the
[1:14:08] different groups can bring to the table
[1:14:10] because it's going to be a necessity to
[1:14:13] do that because it is an expensive
[1:14:14] project and I think you as council need
[1:14:16] to determine how much you're going to
[1:14:17] request from school and other users to
[1:14:20] make this happen. Is it going to be 50%,
[1:14:22] is it going to be a lower percentage
[1:14:23] than that? That's what I need to tell
[1:14:25] them. I had a conversation again with
[1:14:27] the AD at the high school today just to
[1:14:29] say what can you bring forth? He said,
[1:14:31] "Well, it's going to come down to
[1:14:33] business manager and their school board
[1:14:35] and and the superintendent what they
[1:14:36] believe they can afford." And I talked
[1:14:38] with Stephanie earlier today, too, about
[1:14:41] would this be bonded? Again, up to you.
[1:14:43] Are are we going to just pay for it
[1:14:45] outright and then there still could be a
[1:14:47] payment plan where the school district
[1:14:49] could pay back? Again, I'm not trying
[1:14:51] not to speak on their behalf, but we
[1:14:53] would allow that. I'm I'm assuming you
[1:14:55] would allow that for the school district
[1:14:56] to pay back any cost that that we felt
[1:15:00] they needed to pay toward this
[1:15:01] construction. Yeah. And they're getting
[1:15:03] ready I I believe they do their budget
[1:15:05] in June. I don't know that for sure.
[1:15:06] Right. So we'd be looking at a 2627
[1:15:08] budget for them because they're they're
[1:15:11] fiscal year 26 is starting in July 1.
[1:15:14] Right. So I guess on on the same topic
[1:15:17] uh there was a tournament this weekend
[1:15:19] uh 116 kids and about 300 people
[1:15:23] attended it. So these courts are being
[1:15:25] used. It's not like we only have 50
[1:15:27] people using them and stuff. So it was I
[1:15:29] had actually asked them to get a drone
[1:15:30] picture for us and they didn't do it
[1:15:32] just so we could understand that this is
[1:15:34] just one tournament of the boys and I do
[1:15:36] think they do four tournaments and then
[1:15:38] the girls do four tournaments. So and
[1:15:40] then the adult league. So but I
[1:15:42] understand it's a lot of money. Joe, is
[1:15:44] that the final estimate from the
[1:15:46] engineer or will that be revised as they
[1:15:48] do the design? Yeah, it it is their uh
[1:15:51] original I mean their first engineers
[1:15:52] estimate typically you want that to be
[1:15:55] uh
[1:15:57] 25% higher than what you think it's
[1:16:00] going to be just for estimating
[1:16:01] purposes. This project you don't want it
[1:16:03] for dollars right now because the
[1:16:05] project will be bid uh at a minimum the
[1:16:08] fall of this year. So we don't know what
[1:16:11] next year's numbers are going to be. Um,
[1:16:13] we obviously want them to come in under
[1:16:16] uh what the estimate is. So that way we
[1:16:18] have contingency on the project in case
[1:16:20] something comes up that we don't know
[1:16:21] about. And it always seems like when you
[1:16:23] get into these projects, the original
[1:16:25] estimate um because it is just a high
[1:16:28] level on paper, there's always something
[1:16:30] you miss or that you should have
[1:16:31] included that's not. So you want some
[1:16:33] extra dollars in there to take care of
[1:16:34] those items.
[1:16:36] Um so is the estimate high? Yes. And the
[1:16:39] reason is you want it high. Um, back to
[1:16:42] your original question, uh, the
[1:16:45] post-tension was roughly 25% more.
[1:16:53] Are we going to have them look at post
[1:16:54] tension versus non-postension just for
[1:16:56] the sake of argument? Okay, just
[1:16:58] checking. No,
[1:17:00] the direction from council at that
[1:17:01] evening was uh post tension. I I will
[1:17:05] just tell you that the the tennis
[1:17:08] association has done a lot of research
[1:17:10] with it and and I've stated a lot of
[1:17:13] this before, so I'm not going to repeat
[1:17:14] it, but they are willing their money
[1:17:16] that they're willing to put in will only
[1:17:18] from what I understand from them. I
[1:17:20] don't want I don't like speaking for
[1:17:21] Jacob in the group, but they said they
[1:17:23] will only put it in if they do the post
[1:17:24] extension because they want this to last
[1:17:26] the rest of their life. They don't want
[1:17:28] to have to mess with it again. And and I
[1:17:30] think that you know this will be year 30
[1:17:31] coming up I believe or is it 28 either
[1:17:35] 28 or 30 it's one of those. So if we get
[1:17:37] another 30 plus I do believe we will get
[1:17:39] more out of the postion we get 40 out of
[1:17:42] them. Won't bother
[1:17:47] me. Okay. Anyone else would anyone in
[1:17:51] the audience like to discuss
[1:17:57] this? Okay. Okay. So, we have a motion
[1:17:59] to second. All those in favor of the
[1:18:00] motion say I. I. Oppos. Same sign.
[1:18:04] Motion carries. Action to approve
[1:18:06] resolution R2025-31 amending water and
[1:18:08] sewer rates for 2025 by implementing a
[1:18:10] search charge for CW13 CW15 and DW08.
[1:18:14] Mine.
[1:18:21] Mayor and council. The resolution that
[1:18:23] I'm showing up on the board is amending
[1:18:25] our existing water rates to implement a
[1:18:28] search charge for three different
[1:18:30] projects.
[1:18:32] CW13, which is our south wastewater
[1:18:35] treatment plant improvements. Uh CW 15,
[1:18:40] which is the sewer improvements on Fifth
[1:18:43] Street, and DW8, which is the water
[1:18:46] improvements on Fifth Street. The only
[1:18:48] changes to our previous rate resolution
[1:18:51] that was approved is just implementing
[1:18:53] those search charges. The search charges
[1:18:56] are taken out of the existing rates. So
[1:18:59] you can see there there's the water one
[1:19:01] and the two sewer ones are listed down
[1:19:03] here. These search charges are required
[1:19:05] as part of the state revolving fund loan
[1:19:08] application that we have with
[1:19:11] DNR, Department of Egg and Natural
[1:19:14] Resources um as a repayment source for
[1:19:17] those debt service payments. If the city
[1:19:19] was not to implement the search charge,
[1:19:21] it would go against constitutional debt.
[1:19:23] Um so I can answer any questions that
[1:19:25] you have, but otherwise I recommend
[1:19:28] approval of the resolution as shown on
[1:19:30] the agenda.
[1:19:33] Exactly how much is it going up? The
[1:19:35] rates are not going up. We are just
[1:19:38] taking the search charge out of the
[1:19:39] existing rates. So it's the same rates
[1:19:42] that council's approved. It's just we
[1:19:44] segregate part of that revenue and put
[1:19:46] it aside for that debt service payment.
[1:19:49] Move to approve. Second by M. Second by
[1:19:52] Mr. Beth. Further discussion.
[1:19:56] Would anyone in the audience like to
[1:19:57] discuss this?
[1:19:58] [Music]
[1:20:00] All those in favor of the motion say I.
[1:20:02] I. I oppose. Same sign. Motion carries.
[1:20:05] Action to approve resolution
[1:20:07] R2025-25, a resolution giving approval
[1:20:09] to certain sewer facility improvements,
[1:20:11] giving approval to the issuance and sale
[1:20:12] of revenue bond to finance directly and
[1:20:14] indirectly the improvements to the
[1:20:16] facilities, approving the form of a loan
[1:20:18] agreement and the revenue bond and
[1:20:19] pledging project revenue and collateral
[1:20:21] to secure payment of the revenue bond
[1:20:23] and creating special funds and accounts
[1:20:25] for the administration of the funds for
[1:20:26] operation of the system and retirement
[1:20:28] of the revenue bond and providing for a
[1:20:30] segregated special charge or
[1:20:32] searchcharge for a payment of the bonds.
[1:20:34] Miss Owen Mayor Council, first I
[1:20:36] apologize for the title that does not
[1:20:38] come from me. That comes from B bond
[1:20:41] counsel. Um this resolution as well as
[1:20:44] the next resolution are both required as
[1:20:47] part of that same process that we just
[1:20:49] talked about. Um the first resolution
[1:20:53] 2025-25 is
[1:20:55] for I'm trying to look the Fifth Avenue
[1:20:58] sewer project. Um, I can answer any
[1:21:01] questions that you have, but again, this
[1:21:03] is just the format of the resolution
[1:21:06] that's required as part of the state
[1:21:08] revolving fund loan application. If the
[1:21:11] city were to not pass these two
[1:21:13] resolutions, you'd be paying for them
[1:21:15] out of cash reserves. Move to approve.
[1:21:17] Second motion by Mr. Sher, second by Mr.
[1:21:20] Bington. Further discussion?
[1:21:23] Anyone in the audience like to discuss
[1:21:25] this? Mayor, I was just going to point
[1:21:27] out real quick that I'm sure people saw
[1:21:29] in in uh the article in the paper about
[1:21:32] Mitchell throwing their hat in the ring
[1:21:34] for the potential prison. Now, we're a
[1:21:36] long long long ways of even discussing
[1:21:39] anything about it, but the reason we
[1:21:41] were able to put it in is because we
[1:21:44] have ample water and have the ability
[1:21:46] for sewer as a result. So, that's just a
[1:21:49] a case in point of of the potential of
[1:21:53] what Mitchell has coming forward as a
[1:21:55] result of bringing additional water to
[1:21:57] Mitchell um and be able to treat it of
[1:22:00] the sewer. So, I'm not saying that I'm
[1:22:02] for or against. I'm just saying that's
[1:22:04] an example. So, I nobody wants to pay
[1:22:07] higher water rates, but we're looking at
[1:22:09] this as a as a long-term investment.
[1:22:13] And we really do like that searchcharge
[1:22:15] debt. um implementing the search charge,
[1:22:17] it doesn't go into our constitutional
[1:22:19] debt category, so it reserves as that to
[1:22:22] use for other projects that the city
[1:22:24] might have.
[1:22:27] Further
[1:22:29] discussion? Okay. All those in favor of
[1:22:31] the motion say I. Post same sign. Motion
[1:22:34] carries. Action approved resolution
[1:22:36] R2025-26, a resolution giving the
[1:22:38] approval to certain drinking water
[1:22:40] facility improvements, giving approval
[1:22:41] to the issuance and sale of the revenue
[1:22:43] bond to finance directly and indirectly
[1:22:45] the improvements to the facilities,
[1:22:46] approving the form of the loan agreement
[1:22:48] and the revenue bond, pledging project
[1:22:50] revenues and collateral to secure the
[1:22:52] payment of the revenue bond and creating
[1:22:54] special funds and accounts for the
[1:22:56] administration of funds for operation of
[1:22:58] the system and retirement of the revenue
[1:23:00] bond and providing for a segregated
[1:23:01] special charge or searchcharge for the
[1:23:04] bond.
[1:23:04] for the payments of the bonds. Mrs.
[1:23:06] Elman, same comments as before. This
[1:23:08] resolution is for the loan that is for
[1:23:11] the drinking water improvements on Fifth
[1:23:13] Street.
[1:23:15] Move to approve. Second. Motion by Mr.
[1:23:18] Goldhammer. Second, man. Mr. Smith, who
[1:23:21] wrote this? Was it this? Was it the bond
[1:23:23] guy? The bond council writes those. Yes.
[1:23:25] All right, sounds good. Further, it's
[1:23:26] not me. It's the other lawyer. It's the
[1:23:28] other lawyer.
[1:23:31] Anyone in the audience like to discuss
[1:23:32] this?
[1:23:34] All those in favor of the motion say I.
[1:23:36] I. The same sign. Motion carries. Action
[1:23:39] to approve resolution
[1:23:41] R2025-32 creating tax increment district
[1:23:44] 41 and approving the project plan. Mr.
[1:23:47] Johnson. All right. Uh this tax
[1:23:51] increment district would relate to the
[1:23:53] Woods apartment proposed development uh
[1:23:56] being undertaken by Paul Groige LLC.
[1:23:59] Uh staff did meet to review the
[1:24:01] application and project plan. Um and
[1:24:04] I'll kind of walk you through some of
[1:24:06] that. Um as you can see in the project
[1:24:09] plan, the proposed development is a 70
[1:24:12] apartment unit complex. Um
[1:24:15] includes oh I don't have the numbers in
[1:24:18] front of me. I think
[1:24:21] six 12 buildings
[1:24:23] total. Um also one of those would be
[1:24:26] gym. um uh possible mixed use space. So
[1:24:31] I think it's six 12plexes or is it 12
[1:24:33] sixlexes? Um one of those two. All I'm
[1:24:36] seeing in front of me right now is 70
[1:24:38] units. So there we go.
[1:24:43] 12
[1:24:45] buildings. Um staff again reviewed the
[1:24:48] the project plan. Um requirements that
[1:24:52] you'll see is uh the legal description.
[1:24:54] One thing that's different with this one
[1:24:55] is we did uh uh loop in Matty Street um
[1:25:01] for the city to be able to potentially
[1:25:03] construct that in the future. Uh we
[1:25:05] added that to the legal description. Um
[1:25:08] we know that there is projected to be
[1:25:11] some portion of unused tax increment
[1:25:15] that should be available to support that
[1:25:17] project. We don't know how much it's
[1:25:19] going to be able to support and we don't
[1:25:21] know how much the city might ultimately
[1:25:24] um you know uh end up constructing off
[1:25:27] of Matty Street, but it should help
[1:25:30] support that project if we want to
[1:25:32] pursue it in the future. Um, the nice
[1:25:34] thing about adding it now, um, getting
[1:25:38] that increment developed, uh, you get
[1:25:40] the the apartments starting to develop,
[1:25:43] within the first couple of years, you'll
[1:25:45] start to see what those valuations
[1:25:47] actually come in at. Um, you'll be able
[1:25:50] to see how much the TIFF is actually
[1:25:53] going to generate over that amount of
[1:25:55] time. and then you've got up to five
[1:25:58] years to decide whether you're going to
[1:26:00] end up uh doing any portion of Matty
[1:26:03] Street. Um so you'll have those more
[1:26:06] accurate numbers to work off of before
[1:26:08] you have to make the decision. So that's
[1:26:10] one unique thing about this project plan
[1:26:12] compared to past ones that you've seen
[1:26:13] is it's got that potential component. Um
[1:26:16] you'll see in there the developers
[1:26:18] projected costs are at that 2.281
[1:26:21] 281 U
[1:26:24] million.
[1:26:26] Um the developer would p uh would get
[1:26:29] their increment first and then uh the
[1:26:32] any remaining increment that develops
[1:26:34] over that uh would be used towards uh
[1:26:38] the the potential Matty Street project.
[1:26:40] If we don't end up doing the Matty
[1:26:41] Street project, then the tiff would
[1:26:43] potentially pay off quite
[1:26:46] early.
[1:26:49] Um, other than that, it's very similar
[1:26:51] to past TIFFs that we've done. Um, it's
[1:26:54] got the 20-year expiration or when that
[1:26:56] increment is paid out, whichever should
[1:26:58] occur earlier. Um, no interest
[1:27:01] associated with the TIF. It is a grant
[1:27:04] pass through type TIF um where it does
[1:27:07] not count against the city's
[1:27:08] constitutional and statutory debt.
[1:27:10] There's a number of reporting
[1:27:12] requirements built in there that the
[1:27:13] developer will need to meet.
[1:27:15] Uh, we did build in some extra language
[1:27:17] regarding Matty
[1:27:18] Street.
[1:27:24] And if you go to to the increment page,
[1:27:28] Stephanie, you can see that um recall
[1:27:31] that their request was for the 2.281.
[1:27:35] um their their increment projection
[1:27:37] which uh typically is a little bit low
[1:27:40] because we don't factor in growth or
[1:27:42] anything like that showed that it should
[1:27:44] generate up to the
[1:27:46] 2.7. So we knew that there was going to
[1:27:48] potentially be $400 5 $500,000 that
[1:27:51] could support that Matty Street project.
[1:27:54] Hopefully it ends up being more than
[1:27:55] that and we'll know before you decide to
[1:27:58] move forward with the Matty Street
[1:28:00] construction. And then the other point
[1:28:02] is all of the tiffs have to certify
[1:28:04] their costs as approved in the project
[1:28:06] plan. So if something comes in um less
[1:28:10] than what they estimated that
[1:28:11] construction cost to be, then it would
[1:28:13] free up some of those funds to Maddie
[1:28:15] Street as well.
[1:28:18] Other than that, um again, staff worked
[1:28:20] through the project plan in uh in the
[1:28:24] review. It does appear to meet all of
[1:28:25] the statutory requirements uh for TIFF
[1:28:29] approval. Um, it does also seem to
[1:28:31] comply with our TIFF handbook. And I
[1:28:34] believe we've got representatives
[1:28:36] available to speak to the TIFF. Um, so
[1:28:39] we can open it up for council questions
[1:28:41] or discussion.
[1:28:53] Good evening. Don Peterson. I'm the
[1:28:54] attorney for the developer, Paul
[1:28:56] Gronowige. Paul is uh this is a busy
[1:28:59] season for him and so he's uh pouring
[1:29:02] some forms and getting stuff on another
[1:29:03] project. So he couldn't be here tonight
[1:29:05] but uh he wishes that he could. I think
[1:29:07] uh Stephanie and and Justin have laid
[1:29:10] out what what the plan is.
[1:29:13] Um the the nice thing about this is is
[1:29:16] half of these uh half these apartments
[1:29:18] will be three-bedroom and so they'll be
[1:29:21] more family orientated there. There's a
[1:29:24] uh workout facility included in one of
[1:29:26] the buildings. Uh room for a coffee shop
[1:29:29] uh in one of the buildings. Uh he has
[1:29:31] plans for an outdoor pool potentially
[1:29:33] fire pit kind of a play area for for
[1:29:36] children. One of the things that we've
[1:29:37] seen is that affordable housing which uh
[1:29:41] Roger was talking about has a and and
[1:29:43] Susan about a shortage in Mitchell. Part
[1:29:46] of the thing is is affordable housing is
[1:29:48] expensive to build and a lot of the the
[1:29:51] entry positions in Mitchell. You can't
[1:29:53] afford a $400,000 house. You can't
[1:29:56] $350,000 house. But if you have a nice
[1:29:59] apartment that you can move into that
[1:30:01] has three bedrooms, room for your
[1:30:03] family, you can work a few years
[1:30:04] hopefully and save for the down payment
[1:30:06] and then get into that uh get into that
[1:30:09] first house. So I think that answers
[1:30:11] all, you know, it fills all those boxes,
[1:30:14] checks them all. So, I'm here to answer
[1:30:16] any questions that you may have.
[1:30:20] I did kind of skip over the affordable
[1:30:22] housing uh aspect of that. So, again,
[1:30:25] this would be um it's got language in
[1:30:27] there that it be classified as an
[1:30:28] affordable housing type tiff. Um if it
[1:30:31] doesn't receive that classification,
[1:30:32] then the tiff would terminate. Um again,
[1:30:35] the reason that we do that is so that it
[1:30:36] doesn't get classified as a local tiff
[1:30:39] and so that it doesn't impact the the
[1:30:41] tax formula. Right. So, in addition to
[1:30:44] certifying the costs every year, they
[1:30:46] also provide um a certification of the
[1:30:49] rental rates as well. Interesting. I I
[1:30:51] pointed this out to the planning
[1:30:53] commission, but uh Paul Gronowig had one
[1:30:55] other affordable housing tiff and it was
[1:30:58] for houses uh first-time home buyers and
[1:31:01] it was out uh north uh out there by the
[1:31:04] lake and it's full. Every last been sold
[1:31:06] and I think every last been built upon
[1:31:08] and that's maybe a three-year-old tiff.
[1:31:10] So that's just kind of a
[1:31:13] a monument or a action that shows that
[1:31:17] um there's a need for this type of
[1:31:20] housing in Mitchell. And if if it can be
[1:31:23] done with a tiff, it just puts more, you
[1:31:25] know, it puts people in them. So
[1:31:30] Don, this is not income income based
[1:31:32] though. It is not it is not income
[1:31:34] based. Right. But but the point well
[1:31:36] taken is is families, young families can
[1:31:39] move into Mitchell and start out in this
[1:31:42] type of a of arrangement and hopefully
[1:31:44] eventually get into a house. Yeah. Or
[1:31:47] people our age, Jeff could retire and
[1:31:48] live out in them, too. So it's not
[1:31:51] income, but there is a set rate there.
[1:31:55] There is a set uh rate, Mike. And it's
[1:31:58] it's the state of South Dakota sets that
[1:32:00] and so it's and so it cannot be above
[1:32:02] that and it has to we have the same
[1:32:04] thing on the same development you talked
[1:32:06] about. There's a couple rental houses
[1:32:08] out there that have to meet that
[1:32:10] requirement and then Flats on Havens is
[1:32:12] also set up that same. So Mike, what's
[1:32:13] that program called? It's
[1:32:16] the I got it. It's the uh 80% of the
[1:32:20] state South Dakota area median income.
[1:32:22] There you go. It's set by the South
[1:32:24] Dakota Housing Development Authority.
[1:32:25] So, it's 80% for the state of South
[1:32:27] Dakota area median income being utilized
[1:32:29] by the state by South Dakota Housing
[1:32:31] Development Authority at the time such
[1:32:33] rental agreement is entered
[1:32:35] and that changes from time to time. It
[1:32:37] it Yeah, they do update it on their
[1:32:39] website. It's
[1:32:41] I can't find it. It's extremely hard to
[1:32:43] find now, Stephanie. I was working with
[1:32:45] the Department of Revenue and they
[1:32:47] couldn't find it. It used to be really
[1:32:48] easy to pull that up, but it's not quite
[1:32:50] as easy anymore. Actually, Pam and I
[1:32:52] found the calculator online to find it.
[1:32:55] [Music]
[1:33:00] Yeah, I I I mean Flats on
[1:33:03] Havens full, right? It's a capacity. So,
[1:33:07] I mean, obviously, this is something
[1:33:09] that is necessary. We need it. We um
[1:33:12] there's a demand. So, well, we just, you
[1:33:14] know, you just approved not so long ago,
[1:33:16] you you approved one that is income
[1:33:19] based uh and and that'll fill up in no
[1:33:22] time. And then there was another uh
[1:33:24] similar apartment that was affordable
[1:33:26] but isn't income based uh being built as
[1:33:28] well. So they wouldn't build them if I
[1:33:31] don't think there was any need for them.
[1:33:32] So second that.
[1:33:37] Okay. Further discussions or questions
[1:33:38] for
[1:33:42] Okay. All right. Anyone in the audience
[1:33:44] like to discuss this?
[1:33:52] Uh, good evening evening. Steve Simpson
[1:33:54] here. I have a handout I'd like to
[1:33:56] provide. There's 12 copies. So, there's
[1:33:58] a few extra for the administration here.
[1:34:02] I want to start out while that's being
[1:34:04] passed around saying that I'm totally in
[1:34:06] favor of the developer part of the tiff,
[1:34:10] the
[1:34:11] 2.282. Uh we've already passed many uh
[1:34:16] affordable housing tiffs in Mitchell
[1:34:18] recently and and in order for this
[1:34:21] developer to compete with those, he
[1:34:23] deserves to have a tiff, too. So I I'm I
[1:34:26] support the tiff to the developer. Um my
[1:34:29] concern is with the Maddie Street uh
[1:34:31] south of uh Quiet Lane being added into
[1:34:34] the uh tax instead of the district. uh
[1:34:38] if you read uh the plan the project plan
[1:34:42] it clearly states that these are two
[1:34:45] separate
[1:34:46] projects. If you go to uh page 10 uh it
[1:34:51] talks about the financing terms uh the
[1:34:54] the fourth bullet states
[1:34:58] uh that the developers project with the
[1:35:01] remaining tax payment up to 2.2 for the
[1:35:04] Mandy Street project. So there's 2.282
[1:35:06] 282 for the developer project and
[1:35:09] there's 2020 for the for the Mandy
[1:35:12] Street project. So it states right there
[1:35:14] on page 10 there's two different
[1:35:15] projects. Um you go to page 11 and and
[1:35:20] it it talks again about the city shall
[1:35:22] pass through all available tax increment
[1:35:24] fund revenues not to exceed 2.282
[1:35:28] million in a manner consistent with the
[1:35:30] Mandy Street cost. Then the bottom of of
[1:35:33] page 11 it talks about the Mandy Street
[1:35:35] terms.
[1:35:37] Uh at the top of 12 it says if Mandy
[1:35:40] Street is constructed the tiff increment
[1:35:42] will first be applied to developer
[1:35:44] certified cost up to the
[1:35:47] 2.282. Okay. Once the developer
[1:35:50] certified costs are paid all remaining
[1:35:51] increment will be paid to the
[1:35:53] city up to the maximum of 4.3.
[1:35:57] Um before I go into the handout, what
[1:36:01] does this mean is I want to uh go to
[1:36:05] page 18, it talks about uh the tax levy
[1:36:09] of 017 is is what's creating this tax uh
[1:36:14] benefit
[1:36:15] normally. And the way the tiffs have
[1:36:18] been working is in this example once it
[1:36:21] reaches 2.2082 282 the tiff is done and
[1:36:25] then the uh uh various county school
[1:36:29] district and city of Mitchell begins to
[1:36:32] have that benefit financial benefit and
[1:36:35] if you look at the percentages of the
[1:36:37] tax levy the city of Mitchell is
[1:36:41] 25% of the total uh the school
[1:36:45] district's 56% and the county Davidson
[1:36:48] County is 19%.
[1:36:50] So this is where I'll go to the handout.
[1:36:54] On page one, I
[1:36:55] highlighted that these tiffs are used so
[1:36:58] that you don't have to use general
[1:37:00] funds. So if we uses the general fund of
[1:37:04] the city of Mitchell to uh put in Manny
[1:37:08] Street, the city will will be on the
[1:37:12] hook for 100% of that
[1:37:15] cost versus if you use the tiff money,
[1:37:18] it's only
[1:37:19] 25%. And so so you're asking people
[1:37:22] outside of city limits to help pay for a
[1:37:26] city street. And there's a fairness
[1:37:29] question there.
[1:37:32] Now, with regard
[1:37:34] to requirements by the South Dakota uh
[1:37:39] Department of Revenue, uh go to page two
[1:37:43] highlighted under the county and
[1:37:45] municipal approval. It states, quote,
[1:37:47] "Local authorities then request the
[1:37:50] department of revenue to make a
[1:37:52] preliminary classification determination
[1:37:56] prior to the tiff district approval by
[1:37:58] the county or municipality. So, has that
[1:38:01] has that been done yet?" according to
[1:38:04] the uh tax increment financing handbook
[1:38:07] for the city of Mitchell that was
[1:38:09] approved uh January 6, 2020. Uh I I go
[1:38:13] to the back of it and that step is not
[1:38:15] included in the steps to uh process a
[1:38:19] tiff at for the city of Mitchell. And
[1:38:23] the reason why this classification is
[1:38:25] important, you go to page
[1:38:28] three and it has the classification
[1:38:31] types. There's four of them. And the one
[1:38:33] I want to point to is the local type. It
[1:38:36] states that unless the tiff district
[1:38:38] meets the definition of an industrial
[1:38:41] economic development or affordable
[1:38:43] housing tiff district, it is a local
[1:38:46] tiff
[1:38:47] district. The projects usually benefit
[1:38:49] the local government instead of having a
[1:38:51] regional or statewide benefit. And I am
[1:38:54] saying that the Manny Street project is
[1:38:57] a local tiff and we're mix it in with
[1:39:00] this housing affordable housing tiff.
[1:39:03] And so I'm not sure how the department
[1:39:06] of revenue is going to classify this
[1:39:08] thing when we're putting two different
[1:39:09] things into the same uh district. Uh and
[1:39:13] the reason why this is important is in
[1:39:15] the last column that for a local tiff,
[1:39:19] the county auditor is required to impose
[1:39:21] an additional school levy on all real
[1:39:24] property within any impacted school
[1:39:26] district to hold the districts
[1:39:29] harmless. Okay? And really what's going
[1:39:31] on here is if this local tiff does not
[1:39:35] benefit the state as a whole as the
[1:39:37] other three types of tiffs do, the state
[1:39:40] is not going to uh provide the school
[1:39:43] system with state aid for that
[1:39:45] increment. And so then the local uh
[1:39:49] taxpayers of that school district will
[1:39:51] then have to make up the difference.
[1:39:53] That's happened in Brookings. I brought
[1:39:55] that forward. They did a couple of those
[1:39:58] and uh when the tiffs were complete, the
[1:40:02] county continued to tax the taxpayers
[1:40:05] $470,000. And I talked to a a county
[1:40:08] audit uh a person in the county audit
[1:40:10] here in Davidson County. I explained
[1:40:12] this to them and they were concerned
[1:40:15] that this would be a very complicated
[1:40:16] process if we have to go through this.
[1:40:19] So my recommendation is you push this
[1:40:21] back to the planning commission, tell
[1:40:23] them to remove Matty Street south of
[1:40:26] Quiet Lane from the from the tax
[1:40:28] increment district and then then put
[1:40:31] this uh
[1:40:33] 2.282 affordable housing tiff forward
[1:40:36] back to your table and then improve it
[1:40:39] and get this thing
[1:40:40] going. Thank you for your time.
[1:40:45] Guess one of the experts have uh some
[1:40:46] followup. All right. Well, I I don't
[1:40:49] want to speak to Steve's comment as to,
[1:40:51] you know, the philosophy of including
[1:40:53] Matty Street, but I do want to speak to
[1:40:55] a couple of the the points that he
[1:40:56] raised. Um, mostly in regards to how the
[1:40:59] TIFF would be classified in the process
[1:41:01] for that. Um, it's our understanding
[1:41:03] that the state no longer gives
[1:41:04] preliminary classifications. You
[1:41:07] actually need to go through approve the
[1:41:08] TIFF and then supply them with the
[1:41:10] information from it being approved
[1:41:12] before they'll give any indication as to
[1:41:14] how they're going to classify it. Um,
[1:41:17] another thing to to touch on here is
[1:41:20] that we've got language in our project
[1:41:22] plan that if it does not get classified
[1:41:25] as an affordable housing, it terminates.
[1:41:27] So, there's no risk of it being
[1:41:29] classified as a local TIFF because if it
[1:41:31] does get classified as a local TIFF, the
[1:41:33] TIFF terminates, it ceased to exist. So,
[1:41:36] if that were to happen, we may need to
[1:41:40] reconsider um the TIFF at a future date,
[1:41:44] take out whatever component the state
[1:41:45] had an issue with, and then reprocess a
[1:41:48] new TIFF. Um but as far as this one
[1:41:51] goes, there's no risk of including it
[1:41:54] and having it classified as a local TIFF
[1:41:56] because if that happens, the TIFF
[1:41:59] terminates.
[1:42:03] Can you just come up to the podium for
[1:42:04] the folks at home?
[1:42:07] Um, follow up with what Justin said in
[1:42:09] the past, uh, we I used to always ask
[1:42:12] for the pre-approval and we'd send in
[1:42:14] the project plan at the same time we'd
[1:42:16] send it to the city and we we'd get it
[1:42:19] back uh, in four or five days either
[1:42:22] saying yes, it works or it doesn't work.
[1:42:24] And in this particular case, I sent it
[1:42:25] in and they asked for several more uh,
[1:42:29] items and one of those was, "Has the
[1:42:30] city approved it yet?" And I said,
[1:42:32] "Well, no, that's we're trying to get
[1:42:33] the pre-approval." and they said they
[1:42:35] don't do that anymore. So there there's
[1:42:37] no way to get the pre-approval uh until
[1:42:40] the city council would approve it and
[1:42:41] then Stephanie attaches sends in the
[1:42:43] plan and attaches some uh items to it
[1:42:46] and then that's what gets looked at.
[1:42:48] Yeah. And I was just going to say even
[1:42:50] when they were doing preapprovals, it it
[1:42:52] wasn't it wasn't relevant anyways
[1:42:54] because when they got once they got the
[1:42:56] plan they could change your mind, right?
[1:42:58] So it's really a duplication that was
[1:43:00] wasn't accomplishing much. Right. Stay
[1:43:03] here. I have a question on Matty Street.
[1:43:05] I've asked you this in private before.
[1:43:07] Stephanie, this is the second time Matty
[1:43:09] Street has been included in a tiff. Why
[1:43:11] did it not get built the first time?
[1:43:16] Well, I I guess my answer would be they
[1:43:19] had an estimate of 10. Well, Don, you
[1:43:23] you did that, Tiffy. Probably. Yeah.
[1:43:26] There you go. Well, I'm going to I'm
[1:43:28] going to Stephanie was right. I'm sure I
[1:43:30] don't have the project plan in front of
[1:43:31] me, but I'm sure there was an estimate
[1:43:33] of what the uh what what the tiff would
[1:43:35] generate. Uh and it and it didn't
[1:43:38] develop quick enough uh because remember
[1:43:40] all your spending has to be done in the
[1:43:42] first five years and it didn't
[1:43:44] generate enough revenue in those first
[1:43:47] five years to uh allow for the building
[1:43:49] of Matty Street. Yeah. Um, I will say,
[1:43:55] [Music]
[1:43:57] um, you might phrase this better than
[1:43:59] me. Um,
[1:44:01] yeah,
[1:44:03] I guess the the other thing to take into
[1:44:05] consideration is that was an old style
[1:44:07] tiff before we started moving over to
[1:44:09] grant pass through and before we started
[1:44:12] started limiting the interest that was
[1:44:14] available to developers. So, it was
[1:44:16] likely a situation where a lot of the
[1:44:18] available increment would have been
[1:44:20] going into developer interest costs. I
[1:44:22] guess what I'm getting at is I feel like
[1:44:25] there's that word again. There's no
[1:44:26] teeth in these deals because right
[1:44:29] because I was not here to vote on that,
[1:44:32] but some of you were. You voted on it
[1:44:34] with the understanding that that if the
[1:44:36] increment occurred, we were going to
[1:44:38] build this street and it didn't happen.
[1:44:40] So, I feel like we're really doubling up
[1:44:42] on a tiff here. And I'm for the project.
[1:44:44] absolutely for the project. I think that
[1:44:46] it's a needed project. The the street
[1:44:48] would be fantastic to put through. I
[1:44:50] just I I'm kind of with Steve. I don't I
[1:44:52] question because of this the second time
[1:44:54] it's been in front of us and that's why
[1:44:55] I asked you to answer it because I knew
[1:44:57] you would wrote the first one. I will
[1:44:59] say uh two things though that come with
[1:45:01] that. We do look at the if you look at
[1:45:03] all the added residential um structures
[1:45:06] that have been added to east of Foster,
[1:45:09] having additional outlet for those
[1:45:10] residents to get to Havens without
[1:45:12] having to use Foster is going to benefit
[1:45:14] that apartment complex. Absolutely. As
[1:45:17] to your question or your concerns about
[1:45:19] the previous tiffs, I think that's
[1:45:22] really what led to the change in the
[1:45:24] process is council wanted to see more
[1:45:27] accountability, more reporting.
[1:45:29] Everybody has to certify their costs.
[1:45:31] Now, they have to provide a list of what
[1:45:35] their rental rates are or what they're
[1:45:36] selling houses for. Actually, Paul's
[1:45:38] been great about that. Stephanie
[1:45:39] actually is the one that sends them to
[1:45:41] me every year. And we've added on to
[1:45:44] that reporting when people are saying as
[1:45:46] part of the TIFF project plan that
[1:45:48] they're creating so many jobs, I'm going
[1:45:50] to start asking on job creation as well.
[1:45:52] So, we are having a lot more oversight
[1:45:54] than what we've had in the past. Um I I
[1:45:58] think partly because your concerns were
[1:46:00] shared and I'll add too, Mike, that the
[1:46:03] nice thing with this one is the city
[1:46:05] holds the cards this time on whether the
[1:46:07] the Matty Street construction moves
[1:46:09] forward or not. And it's there's really
[1:46:13] no risk to us. The de the development is
[1:46:15] going to happen within the first couple
[1:46:17] of years. We'll know what kind of
[1:46:19] increment or what kind of values come in
[1:46:22] for those projects once they're
[1:46:24] completed.
[1:46:26] Um once those come in, we'll be able to
[1:46:28] do a more accurate projection of what
[1:46:30] that tiff will generate over the
[1:46:32] lifespan of it. So you'll know with a
[1:46:36] lot more uh certainty how much is going
[1:46:39] to be able to uh come in to help fund
[1:46:43] the Matty Street construction. And then
[1:46:46] the city once it has all that
[1:46:48] information can decide exactly how much
[1:46:51] of Mattie Street we want to construct.
[1:46:53] And remember, the developer is still at
[1:46:56] risk. The developer, I'll take uh Paul
[1:46:58] Gronowick in this case, is going to go
[1:47:00] out and he's going to build five
[1:47:01] buildings by November 1st of this year.
[1:47:04] If those don't fill up, he's still it's
[1:47:06] his loan. He went out and got the loan.
[1:47:08] He's going to have to service it whether
[1:47:10] there's tiff increment available or not.
[1:47:12] So, he's taking a big risk. And if they
[1:47:14] don't fill up, he probably won't build
[1:47:16] the last five because if he can't get
[1:47:17] the first five rented, at least right
[1:47:19] away. So, the developers going out there
[1:47:22] taking a risk uh in that and and
[1:47:25] sometimes they work and they work great
[1:47:27] and sometimes they don't. Stephanie and
[1:47:29] Justin are right. Um there weren't
[1:47:31] affordable housing tests when that when
[1:47:33] Matty Street was in, so I can't re
[1:47:34] remember how how that was created. Um
[1:47:37] but they've tightened down the rules and
[1:47:40] and and and the developers have accepted
[1:47:43] those and we have to play by those
[1:47:44] rules.
[1:47:46] So, so when if if and when we put Matty
[1:47:49] Street in, will those property owners or
[1:47:52] it's just a dirt trail now, will they be
[1:47:54] assessed a portion of that street or
[1:47:56] will the taxpayer or the increment pay
[1:47:59] for all of that? That's something that
[1:48:02] you'll have to decide when that time
[1:48:04] comes because right now we don't know
[1:48:06] how much is going to come in. We don't
[1:48:08] know how much of the street you'll end
[1:48:09] up wanting to do. Um, so it's possible
[1:48:12] that it might pay for a good chunk of
[1:48:14] it. it's possible that it's only going
[1:48:16] to pay for, you know, half of it. Um, so
[1:48:19] that that's something that the council
[1:48:21] in the future is going to have to
[1:48:22] consider and decide. I mean, the way the
[1:48:25] way it's set up now, it wouldn't pay for
[1:48:27] a lot of it, but we haven't taken in
[1:48:30] into account any increase whatsoever in
[1:48:32] anybody's property taxes out there,
[1:48:34] which is bound to happen. And we big
[1:48:36] costs what seem seem to be going down
[1:48:38] for us right now. Yeah. So, that that
[1:48:40] could help. Um, but there's a reason why
[1:48:42] most tips and Mitchell are paid off in
[1:48:44] 15 or 16 years or uh is is because when
[1:48:47] we figure them out for the life of them,
[1:48:50] we never build in any increase in the in
[1:48:52] the in the taxes and they pay off early.
[1:48:55] So, and and so hopefully this is one
[1:48:58] where it comes just like it's supposed
[1:49:00] to. Uh prices go up or the taxes go up
[1:49:04] and there's money available for Matty
[1:49:06] Street. So I and we should explain the
[1:49:09] reason why um the internal review
[1:49:11] started the conversation with the
[1:49:13] developer is this was one of the
[1:49:15] discussion points back in 2014 2015 when
[1:49:19] we were redoing the tiff plan because
[1:49:21] there was frustration that we didn't see
[1:49:23] this completed. So we thought it was an
[1:49:25] opportunity to kind not wrong or right
[1:49:27] but to try it again and the developer
[1:49:30] had no issue whatsoever. He was happy to
[1:49:32] be able to to accommodate
[1:49:42] Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Back to the page
[1:49:47] three. It states that a local tiff is
[1:49:50] the default unless it's
[1:49:54] industrial. Is there anything on south
[1:49:57] of uh Quiet Lane on Manny Street that's
[1:50:02] uh part of an industrial business? So
[1:50:04] the the fourth category there, Steve,
[1:50:06] under affordable housing is housing
[1:50:09] development, infrastructure
[1:50:10] improvements, housing development, and
[1:50:12] workforce housing. That's what we're
[1:50:14] applying under. Yes. And and south of
[1:50:18] Quiet Lane on Manny Street, there are
[1:50:20] already houses there, right? Are are
[1:50:22] they lowincome affordable housing based
[1:50:25] on state statute?
[1:50:29] Steve, I I think they look at the
[1:50:31] project as a whole, not specific areas
[1:50:33] of it.
[1:50:35] Okay?
[1:50:38] Because if you're looking at just the
[1:50:40] street, there's no tax increment that's
[1:50:43] being generated with any portion of
[1:50:45] Mattie Street. The only tax increment
[1:50:47] that is being generated is the apartment
[1:50:49] complex. Well, that's because that's the
[1:50:51] boundary is set up for that. And I have
[1:50:55] a problem with if if we just did Manny
[1:50:58] Street south of Quiet Lane as a TIFF, it
[1:51:00] would be a local tiff. So we really have
[1:51:03] two different projects here. As I
[1:51:05] stated, your plan state said it's two
[1:51:07] different projects. One project is a
[1:51:09] local tiff type. The other one is an
[1:51:11] affordable housing type. And I'm not
[1:51:13] sure how the South Dakota Department of
[1:51:15] Redwood is going to view a project such
[1:51:17] as this. You said at the beginning that
[1:51:19] this was a unique project. Okay. And it
[1:51:22] is a unique project. I've never seen
[1:51:24] this before and I'm not sure if the
[1:51:25] South Dakota Department of Revenue ever
[1:51:27] seen uh something when it has two
[1:51:29] different types of tiffs in the same
[1:51:30] tiff. Well, I think a similar
[1:51:34] Well, I all I'll say is that there's no
[1:51:36] risk to the city to find out. So, we we
[1:51:39] can approve it as is the developer.
[1:51:42] We're going to delay the project by
[1:51:43] going through this charades with the
[1:51:45] department of revenue. I don't think
[1:51:47] there'd be a significant delay between
[1:51:49] sending it back to project, you know,
[1:51:51] planning commission, revising the
[1:51:53] boundaries, and restarting the process
[1:51:54] if we find out that it won't be
[1:51:56] classified correctly. So, for the sake
[1:51:57] of the developer, hope you're right.
[1:51:59] Thank you.
[1:52:01] And I think Stephanie made a good point
[1:52:03] is having access to 37, adding the
[1:52:07] people on First Street and then instead
[1:52:10] of funneling everybody through First
[1:52:12] that you're even for safety issues that
[1:52:14] you're able to utilize Matty Street.
[1:52:17] That is where I'm thinking is where this
[1:52:19] could make a difference.
[1:52:24] Okay. Anyone else in the audience like
[1:52:26] to discuss this?
[1:52:30] Okay. All those in favor of the motion
[1:52:33] say I post. Same sign. Jordan, we don't
[1:52:36] have a motion. I thought we did. Yep. I
[1:52:39] think Susan, he second it. We got this.
[1:52:44] Susan first. Susan first. Okay. Okay.
[1:52:49] I keep track now because I forgot. I
[1:52:50] used to forget all the time.
[1:52:53] Okay. All those opposed? Same sign. Did
[1:52:55] I say that? I can't remember now. What?
[1:52:57] All right. All right. Motion
[1:52:59] carries. Action to approve resolution
[1:53:02] R2025-33 creating tax increment district
[1:53:04] 42 and approving the project plan. Mr.
[1:53:06] Johnson. All right. So, this would be uh
[1:53:10] TIFF 42 in relation to Dale's A1. Um an
[1:53:14] expansion with that business. Um as you
[1:53:17] can see in the project plan, their um
[1:53:21] proposal would be to add
[1:53:24] um several additions. I won't get into
[1:53:26] the footage of them. Um you'll see a
[1:53:28] picture of the the proposed construction
[1:53:30] later on in there, but um approximately
[1:53:33] doubling their base space. Um potential
[1:53:36] to add up to 10 new employees on top of
[1:53:39] I believe their existing
[1:53:42] 15 if I'm remembering correctly. Um,
[1:53:45] once again, staff did uh review the
[1:53:48] project plan, uh, work with the
[1:53:50] developer to to revise that and get it
[1:53:52] into a state where it does meet all of
[1:53:54] the statutory requirements and the the
[1:53:57] TIFF hand Mitchell TIFF handbook
[1:54:01] uh requirements. Legal description
[1:54:04] includes the the property itself. Um,
[1:54:06] and then there were uh adjacent
[1:54:09] rightaways that were included for any of
[1:54:11] their aprons, sidewalks, utility
[1:54:14] connections that they might need to make
[1:54:16] in the in the rightway in those
[1:54:26] locations. Uh, you can see their tiff
[1:54:29] request was in the amount of $340,15.
[1:54:34] The TIFF does function as a grant pass
[1:54:37] through. Uh very similar terms that we
[1:54:39] just discussed as far as the 20-year
[1:54:41] timeline or when the increment gets paid
[1:54:44] out, whichever occurs first. We do have
[1:54:47] the language in there uh acting as a
[1:54:49] grant pass through does not count
[1:54:50] against the city's constitutional and
[1:54:52] statutory debt. Uh we also have the
[1:54:55] reporting and certification terms in
[1:54:58] there um as we do with other tiffs.
[1:55:03] Um you can see going down to their
[1:55:06] project cost breakdown
[1:55:08] uh that their eligible project costs
[1:55:10] came in higher than what they were
[1:55:12] requesting. Again that's limited by uh
[1:55:15] what the TIF is projected to generate.
[1:55:17] So um you can also see the total of
[1:55:21] their non-p project costs which are
[1:55:24] about $300,000 higher than what they
[1:55:26] have for eligible. uh total investment
[1:55:29] would be up in that $1.1 million
[1:55:32] range. Uh their tiff generation again
[1:55:35] shows that that would be uh generating
[1:55:37] over the course of the uh lifespan of
[1:55:39] the tiff 340,000 which uh roughly
[1:55:43] coincides with the amount of their
[1:55:44] request.
[1:55:50] And I think if you want to give them
[1:55:53] the scroll down to the picture,
[1:55:55] Stephanie, give them an idea what the
[1:55:59] the improvements are going to look like.
[1:56:01] So, um, other than that, um, I think
[1:56:05] covers the basics and we can open it up
[1:56:08] to questions or further comments.
[1:56:13] uh two of them. So if you I'll maybe
[1:56:16] maybe Don will speak to this, but if you
[1:56:17] look at the pictures, uh the the front
[1:56:20] portion of the building would be
[1:56:22] existing and then there's a walkway and
[1:56:26] those six additional bays in the rear.
[1:56:28] Um and I think one area to connect those
[1:56:31] that would be uh the the expansion that
[1:56:34] they're proposing the tiff for.
[1:56:38] So two of the long brothers are here, uh
[1:56:40] Darren and Devin. Um, it's a their
[1:56:43] second generation. Their father Dale
[1:56:45] started the business and their sons are
[1:56:47] now in the business. I wish Roger Music
[1:56:49] was still here because these up to 10
[1:56:51] new jobs uh come with full benefits. Uh,
[1:56:55] a good enough pay that I told Darren I
[1:56:57] didn't want him telling our associates
[1:56:58] how much he was paying people at
[1:57:00] Dales. But, but I mean that this is
[1:57:03] exactly what I think what Roger was kind
[1:57:05] of talking about. These are highpaying
[1:57:07] jobs, full benefits, and we can add 10
[1:57:09] new ones to the existing 15. Uh, but
[1:57:13] it's it but for the tiff, it it it won't
[1:57:15] go forward. So, I don't know if you have
[1:57:17] any questions for for Darren or
[1:57:20] Devon. Any questions for the developer?
[1:57:23] I'll move to approve. Motion by Mr.
[1:57:25] Hurle, second by Mr.
[1:57:28] Golden. Further questions from the
[1:57:31] council. Would anyone in the audience
[1:57:33] like to discuss this?
[1:57:37] Okay. All those in favor of the motion
[1:57:39] say I. I. Oppos. Same sign. Motion
[1:57:42] carries. Action to approve resolution R
[1:57:45] 2025-34 vacation of public right of way
[1:57:48] 16 ft alley in Bayside overlook
[1:57:50] subdivision phase one. Mr. Jennings. Mr.
[1:57:53] Mayor and Council. Um we did put this in
[1:57:54] front of planning commission. There's no
[1:57:56] statutory requirement for it. Um they
[1:57:58] did recommend approval of the vacation
[1:58:00] unanimously.
[1:58:02] Um the all the joining neighbors um to
[1:58:06] this alley had to sign the petition um
[1:58:08] all saying that they would like this
[1:58:09] vacated. Um it it serves no purpose for
[1:58:13] the city of Mitchell. We don't have any
[1:58:14] utilities or anything back there at this
[1:58:16] point. Don't anticipate any either. Um
[1:58:19] the road that ab butts to on the west
[1:58:21] side isn't a road anymore because that
[1:58:22] was vacated a long time ago as well. Um
[1:58:25] each person each abuing land owner would
[1:58:27] get half of the alley um 8 ft
[1:58:31] essentially to each person. I can answer
[1:58:33] any questions that you have for me. Um
[1:58:35] there's probably some people from um out
[1:58:37] there that are here as well that they
[1:58:39] can speak to it as well.
[1:58:45] Move to approve. Motion by Mr.
[1:58:47] Goldhammer.
[1:58:49] Second by Mr.
[1:58:51] Smith. Further discussion.
[1:58:54] I'm going to abstain.
[1:58:56] I'll abain also.
[1:58:59] Okay. You want to
[1:59:01] say anyone in the audience like to
[1:59:03] discuss this?
[1:59:06] No more abstensions.
[1:59:08] Okay. All those in favor of the motion
[1:59:09] say I. I. I. Same sign. Motion carries.
[1:59:14] Action to approve resolution R 2025-35
[1:59:16] plot of as shown on the agenda. Mr.
[1:59:19] Jennigus. Mr. Mayor and Council. uh
[1:59:22] planning commission recommended approval
[1:59:23] of this unanimously. Um they're doing
[1:59:25] some estate planning in this area. Um
[1:59:28] currently it's under one parcel, so
[1:59:30] they're breaking out the farmstead from
[1:59:32] the the land for uh farming, so that way
[1:59:35] they can sell the farmstead separately
[1:59:37] from the the farm ground if they so need
[1:59:39] to. Um there is an easement on the
[1:59:41] southwest corner of it to get from lot A
[1:59:44] to lot B because there's already an
[1:59:45] existing approach right there for them
[1:59:47] um for implement. Um this is just
[1:59:49] outside city limits. Um, but it's still
[1:59:51] within the ETJ, so it's still city
[1:59:53] zoning jurisdiction. Um, the county will
[1:59:56] hear it at their planning commission and
[1:59:57] tomorrow and um, county commission the
[2:00:00] following Tuesday and answer any
[2:00:01] questions that you have.
[2:00:05] Move to approve. Motion by Mrs. Turks.
[2:00:08] Second by Mr. Bathky.
[2:00:12] Further discussion.
[2:00:14] Anyone in the audience like to discuss
[2:00:15] this?
[2:00:17] All those in favor of the motion say I.
[2:00:18] I. Post. Same sign. Motion carries.
[2:00:21] Action to approve resolution R2025 plot
[2:00:23] of lot 2 block six of the woods first
[2:00:25] edition. Mr. Jennigus. Mr. Mayor and
[2:00:26] Council. Planning Commission recommended
[2:00:28] approval of this unanimously um with the
[2:00:31] condition that there's a 10-ft drainage
[2:00:33] easement on the south side. Um during
[2:00:36] planning commission, they said that they
[2:00:38] were going to put a drainage ement along
[2:00:39] the south side. Um actually today when I
[2:00:41] got the plat, I didn't since we already
[2:00:43] have this in the packet, there is a 10ft
[2:00:45] drainage easement along the southside.
[2:00:46] They also put a 10-ft drainage ement
[2:00:48] easement, excuse me, on the east side.
[2:00:50] So, when it gets recorded, those will be
[2:00:52] part of um the plat as well. Um it's
[2:00:55] following the master plan out in the
[2:00:57] area. It's going to be for another
[2:00:58] residential dwelling out there. I can
[2:00:59] answer any questions that you have. Move
[2:01:01] to approve. Motion by Mr. Mardle.
[2:01:04] Second. Second by Mr. Goldhammer.
[2:01:07] Further
[2:01:08] discussion. Would anyone in the audience
[2:01:10] like to discuss
[2:01:11] this? All those in favor of the motion
[2:01:13] say I. I. I. Post. Same sign. Motion
[2:01:17] carries. Action to approve resolution
[2:01:19] R2025-37 as shown on the agenda. Mr.
[2:01:22] Jennings, Mr. Mayor, Council, Planning
[2:01:24] Commission recommended approval of this
[2:01:25] 6 with one extension. Um, this is just
[2:01:28] outside city limits um but is still our
[2:01:31] zoning jurisdiction. County will hear it
[2:01:33] um Tuesday and the following Tuesday. Um
[2:01:35] they're getting ready to plat this for
[2:01:37] um development of the area. Um meets the
[2:01:39] zoning requirements right now. I can
[2:01:41] answer any questions that you have.
[2:01:44] Move to approve. Mr. Goldhammer, second
[2:01:47] by Mr. Bathky. Further discussion.
[2:01:52] Would anyone in the audience like to
[2:01:53] discuss this?
[2:01:55] All those in favor of the motion say I.
[2:01:57] I. Say sign. Motion
[2:02:00] carries. Action to approve resolution R
[2:02:03] 2025-38 property annexation at 30 5213
[2:02:08] FA Road. Mr. Shrader. Yes, Mr. Mayor.
[2:02:11] Councel. Um, the property located at
[2:02:13] 5213 Fiala Road, owned by Nicholas and
[2:02:17] Hillary Rockwell, signed an annexation
[2:02:19] agreement dated September 18th, 2023.
[2:02:22] And staff is requesting this property uh
[2:02:25] be annexed per the annexation agreement.
[2:02:28] Um, the legal description is in the
[2:02:29] staff report and I can answer any
[2:02:31] questions you may have. Move to approve
[2:02:33] by Mr. Cardell. Second. Second by Mrs.
[2:02:37] Church. Any further
[2:02:39] discussion? Would anyone in the audience
[2:02:41] like to discuss
[2:02:43] this? All those in favor of the motion
[2:02:45] say I. I. Oppose. Same
[2:02:48] sign. Motion carries. Second reading on
[2:02:51] ordinance O.
[2:02:53] 2025-4 providing for staggering of
[2:02:55] mayoral and city council elections. Mr.
[2:02:57] Johnson. All right. So the second
[2:03:00] reading on this uh the same basic
[2:03:02] structure there from the last meeting.
[2:03:05] The big uh big change from uh the last
[2:03:08] time that you saw it would be that we
[2:03:10] did make the change um as council uh
[2:03:14] voted on at the last meeting to move it
[2:03:16] to uh two two-year terms for the mayor
[2:03:20] to get that staggered and then keep
[2:03:22] everybody on those same three-year terms
[2:03:24] overall. Um
[2:03:26] so the schedule on how you lay you know
[2:03:30] all the lay out all those elections is
[2:03:32] included within the ordinance there. Um,
[2:03:34] I won't run through them all, but next
[2:03:36] time the mayor's up for election, it
[2:03:38] would be a two-year term. Then they
[2:03:40] would be up for election for another
[2:03:43] two-year term. And then after that
[2:03:45] second two-year term, they would revert
[2:03:47] back to their three-year
[2:03:49] terms. Then starting in that 2031, I
[2:03:53] believe it is, everyone would be on
[2:03:55] their regular three-year cycle.
[2:03:57] Justin, would this rotation
[2:04:00] cause us to have a one
[2:04:03] item issue on the ballot? One
[2:04:07] uh one being just the
[2:04:10] mayor's election should school.
[2:04:14] Yeah, I can't say what other things
[2:04:16] would be on the ballot. Um only because
[2:04:19] a one item ballot has very little
[2:04:22] interest, very draws very few people.
[2:04:25] And I was told by the county auditor
[2:04:28] that it cost 18 grand roughly to run do
[2:04:32] an election to have a one ballot
[2:04:37] issue just seems like a lot of money. I
[2:04:40] think an example would be this year is
[2:04:42] our off year and the school board does
[2:04:44] have an
[2:04:45] election. So you'd be combining with the
[2:04:48] school because don't they usually
[2:04:50] combine with you? Yeah. So you'd be
[2:04:51] combining with the school. The school
[2:04:53] has an election this year. This is our
[2:04:55] off year. If the mayor was running this
[2:04:57] year, it'd be combined with the school
[2:04:58] board. Okay. So, it wouldn't be a one
[2:05:00] ballot. It'd only be a one ballot if the
[2:05:02] school didn't have election.
[2:05:05] And on all even years, you'd have a
[2:05:07] primary, right? Yeah, that's true.
[2:05:12] When's the school board? How long are
[2:05:13] their terms?
[2:05:17] I feel like they run every year. So, if
[2:05:18] theirs is three years, then it's going
[2:05:20] to be the same, I guess, right? forever
[2:05:22] and and I believe that the election
[2:05:24] every year every year. Oh, so no matter
[2:05:26] what there's an election. Okay, we'll
[2:05:28] just tag along with that. Yeah, but I
[2:05:30] mean if
[2:05:31] the school board is having an election
[2:05:34] this year, they pay for it. You know, uh
[2:05:38] they probably the cost city and school
[2:05:40] board then we share the cost. Yeah.
[2:05:43] Whoever has items on the ballot splits
[2:05:46] the cost based on like the last
[2:05:49] election, it was mostly a city election
[2:05:52] last June. So we took the brunt of the
[2:05:56] cost of that election
[2:05:59] and it cost us about 21,000.
[2:06:02] How much? 21,000 last year. I guess to
[2:06:05] your to your point, John, it costs more
[2:06:07] to have an election than to not have an
[2:06:09] election. If if that's the point that
[2:06:11] you're getting.
[2:06:15] Okay. Looking for a motion.
[2:06:24] Oh, you're looking for a motion. I am. I
[2:06:27] will move that. Motion by Mrs. Sharks.
[2:06:35] Marty. Second on second. Second by Mr.
[2:06:37] Bton. Second on second.
[2:06:40] Okay. Any further discussion?
[2:06:42] Would anyone in the audience like to
[2:06:44] discuss this?
[2:06:48] Okay. All those in favor of the motion
[2:06:49] say I. I. Post. Same sign. Move to
[2:06:52] adopt. Second. Motion to adopt. We got a
[2:06:55] second. Further
[2:06:57] discussion. Would anyone in the audience
[2:06:59] like to discuss
[2:07:00] this? Okay. Roll call. Barington. Hi.
[2:07:04] Bathy. Hi. Hi. Smith. Hi. Saber. Hi.
[2:07:08] Gold. Hi. Joel. Hi. Mardo. I motion
[2:07:12] carries. Motion entering executive
[2:07:14] session according to
[2:07:16] SDCL1-25-2 for negotiations. So moved by
[2:07:19] Mr. Goldhammer, second by Mr. Bington.
[2:07:22] All those in favor of the motion say I.
[2:07:25] Say sign. Motion carries. There will be
[2:07:27] no action after executive session.