2026-10-28 - Legal and Finance Committee

Sir. Okay.

Good afternoon. This is the time and

place for the legal and finance

committee meeting for the city of Rapid

City, October 28th, 2026. We'll begin

with a roll call and determination of

quorum.

here.

>> Here

>> here.

>> Okay. Next item is adoption of the

agenda.

>> Second.

>> There's a motion by Roberts and a second

by Tamang to adopt the agenda. All in

favor?

>> All opposed? Motion carries. Next item

is general public comment. This is a

time for members of the public to

discuss or express concerns to the

council on any issue not on the agenda.

Action will not be taken at the meeting

on any issue not on the agenda except by

placement on the agenda by unanimous

vote of the council members present. I

don't have any speaker request forms for

general public comment. So, I'm going to

close general public comment and go to

consent items 1 through 10. Open public

comment on consent items 1 through 10.

Again, I have no speaker request forms

for 1 through 10. I'm going to close

public comment on consent items 1

through 10 and then proceed to um

consent items 1 through 10 and ask if

any members of the committee wish to

pull any items for separate

consideration. We'll go to uh Councilman

Tang.

>> Number three, please.

>> Okay, number three.

Anyone else wish to wish to pull an

item? Motion to approve 1 through 10

minus item three.

>> There's a motion by Roberts and a second

by layman to approve one through 10

except for number three. All in favor?

>> All opposed? Motion carries. Now we'll

go to item three, which is consent item

three. um authorized the city to accept

the National Scenic Byways competitive

grant from the US Department of

Transportation Federal Highway

Administration in the amount of 7.125

million for Skyline Drive improvements

and we'll go to Councilman Tang.

>> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I'll move to

approve if I get a second to hold on to

the floor.

>> There's a motion by Tamang to approve

and a second by Roberts. The floor is

yours, Dr. Tang.

>> Thank you. I just wanted to pull this

item to acknowledge um what an amazing

outcome and result this was. And I I

wouldn't um begin to try to name all the

people that were involved, but it was a

really big feat. It is extremely helpful

to our city. It will add millions of

dollars to our CIP for projects that

were already intended. Um I know I'm

going to name a couple people because I

know they worked very hard on it. [staff names omitted]

several of the

department heads. Uh thank you guys so

much for your work. Amazing. Um and I'm

very excited to see this go through. I

yield.

>> Okay, no other comments. And the motion

on the floor is to approve the um

authorization to accept the $7.125

million grant. All in favor?

>> All opposed? Motion carries.

That brings us to the end of the consent

items. I'll go to non-consent items 11

through 16 and open public comment. I

have one speaker request form for item number 16.

[Public comment summarized: asked what rule changes item 16 involves, and how residents will know when City money, rather than state funds, begins to be spent on the railroad relocation project; questioned the project's scope and cost.]

Okay, thank you. That brings us to the

end of public comment on the consent

items. So, I'm going to close public

comment. Next, we're going to have a

presentation um from the City Engineer on the

sidewalk variance review.

>> That did I say a brief presentation? I

think I meant

>> you did say brief. I think

>> I don't know. It took me 15 minutes the

other day with councelor Tamang to go

through this. So, he's seen it and I

know councelor Maher has also seen it.

But but thank you. Uh part of our uh

goal is to educate on why we do things

and show our process and and let

everybody know that we're trying to be

as consistent as possible. And obviously

uh we can point out inconsistencies in

the past and uh I will even say that as

of yesterday I even misspoke on the one

yesterday. So my boss doesn't know about

that yet but I'll bring him up to speed.

So let's jump into this. I want to talk

about what the process is uh and how we

look at each of these in great detail. I

provided each of you a summary at your

desk there so you can read that on at

your leisure. Uh first is uh we really

support putting sidewalks throughout

Rapid City in every location that's

possible. Now remember we also have some

jurisdiction over the three mile

platting limit within the the county. So

we have to deal with the county and I'll

talk about that in a little bit more. So

uh there is an ordinance that applies to

putting in sidewalks. And the reason

sidewalk variances come to the council

is because that's an ordinance. and that

I just want to when I get to the numbers

I'll talk a little more but I think

ultimately the outcome we'd like to see

is a change in the ordinance to provide

uh staff to make the recommendation and

if the applicant disagrees with our

recommendation then bring the appeals to

council similar we do with exception

process right now. uh up here on the

screen. You guys can read through this.

Uh you know, we want to maintain a

walking as much as we can in the uh area

as much as we can. Uh variance requests

are the exceptions. That's not our

normal thing. We don't normally see

variance request. Here's the numbers for

the last two years. Uh I will note that

in 2026, this only uh runs through

September 24th. Uh the entire report I

have here in front of me, I didn't

provide it to you. As you can see, it's

fairly thick. Uh I went through every

single ordinance so far this year. Uh

there's 22 of them. It's a little higher

than last year for some reason. Uh but

most sidewalk requirements are addressed

without the variance. Just let me just

give you a little number here. 18 of

those were recommended for approval. Uh

two were recommended for denial and two

were withdrawn. So that's the 22 we had

so far this year. I will tell you that

uh council followed staff recommendation

on every single one of these. All right.

So, we are consistent between council

and staff and staff does a remarkable

job. But let's talk about the job that

council or the staff does. This is the

process. Uh very short, very brief here.

The Greg's request uh property owner

requests it that we don't put sidewalk

in a certain location. We do an

engineering review in house. Uh what

happens there is we have an engineer

assigned to the project and they bring

forth all the data and I'll go through

all the data here in a lot more detail

as we go through this to a committee.

The committee is basically [staff members,

names omitted] and then I'm the chairman

of that committee and I ultimately make

the final recommendation as the city

engineer. The staff recommendation moves

forth to this commit or to the public

works committee and then it moves on

through to council as many of you know.

So let's look at what we look at. Uh

first is location. Where what is the

where's the property located? Is it

within the city limits? Uh that makes it

a lot easier, believe it or not, because

then we we have a really good idea of

where sidewalks should and shouldn't be.

Uh is it along a county or state

highway? And as you can see there, if

it's along a state highway, uh we get

their input. if it's along a county uh

road, we get their input. An easy

example of this is Deadwood Avenue.

Deadwood Avenue is actually a state

highway. So, we have to reach out and

get their input on this. Uh most times

they support our decision or they uh you

know say no, we're not going to do that.

Just a little note about Deadwood

Avenue. Uh the DOT has a current project

on their books for 2030 to put sidewalks

in along Deadwood Avenue. So, that one

should be coming here. Of course, it's

the DOT. You know, we're four to five

years out and that could slip, but they

do have it on the plan. They recognize

the need. Uh the other one I want to

point out was the one we recently had

down on Fifth and Catron. On Fifth

Street, we have sidewalks, but we didn't

want to put it on Catron. It was a

high-speed avenue of approach. It wasn't

really constructible. Uh where there's a

drainage right there. It would have been

a major challenge to construct the the

sidewalk along there. The second thing

we look at is is it close to other

sidewalks? Are we connecting to an

existing sidewalk infrastructure? You

know, uh is it is the sidewalk

infrastructure coming or is it, you

know, reasonable to expect people there?

So, uh moving through here quickly, uh

we look at planning. Uh the planning

community planning department does a

remarkable job. We look at the master

bike plan. Uh we look at other any any

other planning that's been done to make

sure that we're in compliance with that.

Uh reminder this is all my staff

engineer that does that and brings it to

our committee. Uh then we look at uh the

constructibility and the development

pattern. If it's a rural road, I'll use

old Folsam. Most of you are aware of

that down there by the business park.

That's a a rural road, very steep

ditches and things like that. It's not

reasonable to put a sidewalk in there

without major reconstruction.

The other one that comes to mind real

quickly is a country road. We recently

had one up there. Uh we are looking at

reconstructing country road. It's also a

ver section. Uh very narrow, very steep.

So we said no, we're not going to put

one in there until we get the road

reconstructed.

Uh is there existing pedestrian

infrastructure nearby and then is it

compatible with the roadway of the

development? That's the other thing we

look at. Uh yesterday,

uh Council Strowman, remind me your

neighborhood name there. A Autumn

>> Autumn Hills. Auburn Auburn Hills.

>> Autumn Hills.

>> Somebody brought that one up this

morning to me. That's a really good

example of where there are no sidewalks

out there and people walk on the street.

When that was planned, it was [a private developer; name

omitted]. Uh when that was

planned, they did plan for no sidewalks.

They did plan for people walking on the

street. The advantage of that area more

than anything else is it's not a through

area to any place else. So we look at

traffic. We say, you know, is this a

road through here to somewhere else? And

the answer is no. So, you know, people

walk on the street. And I was just in

Jacksonville, Florida, and I saw the

very same thing down there. So, it's not

uncommon.

uh one of we look at land use uh

industrial uh we don't see a lot of

pedestrian traffic in the industrial

area you know heavy truck traffic things

like that um most of that business

occurs you know off times early in the

morning late at night uh we are seeing

the shift though I'll move to commercial

the easy one for commercial is out in

where the county office is uh you

brought that up but we should probably

put sidewalk in there uh [a business] did

put sidewalk in. I think [another business is]

putting sidewalk in, things like that.

We're seeing a lot more of those kind of

areas uh where people go for walks on

breaks or walks on lunch and stuff like

that. And in that area, they've been

walking on the street for quite some

time. So, we're trying to get sidewalks

put in there. The last one is

residential. Residential is kind of a

no-brainer. If we have residents, we

want sidewalks if at all possible.

Uh safety is our probably our number one

priority amongst all things. We want it

to be a safe sidewalk. Uh our preference

is not to have curbsides. We want that

little boulevard buffer in there so that

uh people that are walking are separated

from active traffic especially on

high-speed routes uh at pedestrian

transportation everything else. Uh I I

wrote in here cost is not a

consideration. uh when we are evaluating

these from an engineering perspective,

we do not list we do not look at cost or

the uh land owner's ability to pay. That

is not our consideration. There is an

exception to that. If we look at a

sidewalk where let's say it's uh in town

and it's I'll say South Street or one of

these where there's a real steep uh

sides slope coming right off the street

and it would not be reasonable for that

landowner or something to take out a

large hill or fill in a large drainage

uh without extensive engineering and

retaining walls and all that stuff. We

do consider that we looked at

constructibility as a as a factor. So,

uh,

want to just highlight a couple things

here. There's no automatic precedent.

Just because you submit one, uh, we're

not going to grant the exception. We're

not going to, uh, not grant it. We look

at each one as it stands on its own

individual basis. We try to be

consistent as possible. Uh, and as we've

some of us have talked, we have found

inconsistencies in the past. uh we work

very hard to remain as consistent and

possible as as all possible. So council

does retain the final authority to

approve or deny the variance. Yesterday

somebody asked me about the exception

process very or the assessment process I

should say not the exception the

assessment process. Uh there is in

ordinance a way to assess a sidewalk

onto a landowner. That has not been done

in my memory and I don't know if anybody

in this room can ever remember one being

done where the Okay, thank you.

[laughter]

It it's a cumbersome process, shall we

say, and uh I've been asked to do a

find out more information about that and

present it to you guys on what the

assessment process is. So, and I guess

if uh Councilman Roberts would like to

speak more on that, he can. So, anyway,

uh

like I said, factbased, everything else,

just so you know, uh if you have a

question about a specific one, I have

all the the applications so far this

year in this book. I didn't put them in

the presentation. I didn't give them to

you because it gets bit a little bit

long. I went through every single one

and reviewed them and I find that we've

been fairly consistent this year. I

can't guarantee we've been 100%

consistent, but we we work very hard at

that. Uh do you have any questions?

>> I think uh Dr. Tang might have a

question for you. [City Engineer].

>> Okay. Thank you.

>> Uh [City Engineer], thank you. I enjoyed it even

more the second time.

>> Did I do better the second time?

>> Appreciate it. I don't really have a

specific question. Um I just want to uh

point out a couple of facts that I think

you're probably already well aware of.

Um, but just for the record, um, I've

got a series of surveys that were done.

I'm not going to read it all, but I got

the walk audit that the Department of

Health grant did in 201 uh 14 and 15 and

then a subsequent version. I got the

survey from Rapid City's walk score that

COD reported on at 2023 and then the

master plan stuff. Um, and um, I don't

want to I won't draw all that out, but I

think there's it's fair to argue that

there's a consensus that walkability is

really important and that some folks

feel that um, we don't have sidewalks

where we ought to have them. I honestly

looking at all this over the last year

or so think that your department does a

great job and it's it's about as

consistent as it can get when you got

humans making these decisions. when it

gets up here, my view, just my view, it

gets political and it doesn't always get

objective. And that is why I I continue

to lobby for a fee in lie of um and I

got a couple of examples here that I'm

just going to bring up. Um, my favorite

one, and there's several of these, but

um, in Minnesota, there is a fixed

amount per linear square foot that's

ultimately decided individually by their

council and it's held in finance for a

sidewalk only account. I got a stack of

them here from Colorado, Alabama, Texas,

Georgia, and they all go to different

areas of a fund that's usually related

to geographically within the ward at

which that fee was collected. I think if

you had something like that, you would

cut down on the number of requests which

would reduce staff overhead and then I

think it adds a level of fairness

because even if you are granted a

variance because of an extraordinary

reason, uh you still have to contribute

to public pedestrian infrastructure. So,

I don't know if Carla wants to weigh in

on that. I know they're working

diligently, very hard, consistently on

that, but that's just something that I

wanted to add. Thank you for your work.

You guys do a great job. I really

appreciate it.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you. Next, we're going to go to

Councilman Roberts.

>> Thank you. And the only reason I

remember about the ones that we called

in, this was quite a few years ago, it

was over by Stevens High School when we

put the speed bumps in over there, was

because of all the phone calls and all

the people that were worried that this

was going to be something the city was

going to do going into the future and

start calling in all these sidewalks

around town. Um early on, uh when I

first started on the council, the city

tried to call one in on a [sighs]

a homeowner up off of

and I'm trying to think of the street.

Uh it was up around

um Watertown Street, but it wasn't it

was like a block over and I can't I

can't think of what the street is, but

anyway, they tried calling one in. And

because of the retaining walls that

needed to be done and the grading that

needed to be done and everything that

needed to be done at that time, 15 years

ago, when real estate prices were real

low, especially in that area, that

sidewalk was going to cost more than the

house was valued at. So, thank God the

city decided not to do it. So, I think

that uh you know, this can be a two-way

sword if we start calling them in. I

think there's places that maybe it would

be appropriate at times. Uh but as a

city policy, it could get very

difficult. I think it'd be actually

easier in some of these commercial areas

because I think some of these people

could absorb the price and the cost

more. But residential in certain areas

it can get very

cost ineffective. Anyway, thank you.

>> Thank you. We'll go to city attorney

Carla Kushman.

>> I just want

>> I just wanted to update the council

since Dr. Tamang mentioned it. Our

office is looking at the legality of the

fee in lie of IDEA. Um when we this

originally came up um we were given a

deadline of December and I think we'll

use that deadline um uh and we we will

report back what we hear

>> or what we what we find out.

>> All right.

>> Anything else? Thank you.

>> All right. Thank you.

>> Next item is item number 12. Another

presentation, annual review of open

meeting laws in accordance with

SDCL1-25-13

by city attorney Carla Kushman.

>> Thank you.

Um, I'm here today to talk about open

meetings. Um this presentation is given

because the South Dakota legislature in

2025 adopted a statute that says that um

bodies that are subject to the open

meetings rules um be educated annually

on what those rules are. Um so that's

what the purpose of this is. Uh this is

not given because there have been any

open meetings violations because our

office is aware of any open meetings

violations because there have been any

complaints about open meetings

violations. It is simply um an

educational requirement that is put on

us. Um and that's why we are here today.

Um in the presentation uh there's a link

to a publication from the attorney

general that's updated every time

there's a new requirement. I'll be sure

to email that out to the group.

The general rule is that all official

meetings of public bodies are open to

the public. While there are lots of

exceptions, when in doubt, defer back to

the general rule. Um, sometimes there's

some good discussion about whether or

not a public body is um meets the

standards of the statutes found in 125.

There's no doubt that the city council

falls within that realm. So meetings of

the city council um are subject to the

requirements of SDCL1-25.

Um the importance of the rules should be

apparent. It's government transparency

and doing the business of the people out

in public and not behind closed doors.

[sighs] I said that um a public body

isn't really in dispute when it comes to

the city council. One of the questions

is whether or not the meeting is an

official meeting under the statutes.

That definition in the statutes is any

meeting of a quorum of a public body at

which official business or public policy

of that public body is discussed or

decided by the public body. Um and as as

you know a quorum of the city council is

six city council members. Um and the

statutes go on to say this qualifies if

there's a meeting in person,

[clears throat]

if there's a meeting by teleconference.

And recently, um in 2026, they amended

or 2025 they amended the um the statute

to provide more clarity about meetings

by electronic means. So that includes

electronic mail, instant messaging,

social media, text message, or a virtual

meeting platform like Zoom. So, um it

really is meant to encompass any

discussion whether in person or through

text messages or email um where there's

a quorum of the public body where you're

discussing public policy or official

business. Um there's an exception for um

communication solely to schedule a

meeting obviously um but that's a very

limited exception. So, just to hit this

a little bit more clearly, are email

discussions meetings for the purposes of

open meetings laws? Yes, they are if

there's a quorum there and you're

discussing official business of your

body of the body. No, if the emails are

for scheduling purposes. Um, and the

reason for that is that you know the

disc you could have a very robust

discussion over email but it's outside

of the um the eyes of the public um and

it would be considered an open meeting.

I think this is this is a recent update

to the statutes. Um but it matches what

instruction has been to the council for

a long time.

Um there's an exception to uh the

general rule when um when the public

body is invited to um a public event um

and it's possible public policy may be

discussed but you're not in control of

the agenda. Um there I think there's a

lot of situations where um you all are

invited to something out in the public

because you're council members and at

that time the statute requires us to

provide notice of a possible quorum and

we call those quorum notices. I think

they go out at least each week,

sometimes a couple times each week, just

to to notify the public that um a quorum

of the council may be out um at a ribbon

cutting or at an elevate meeting or at a

you know um public event and um and

there's notice, but it's not you're not

in charge of the agenda. No action will

be taken.

Um the statutes require notice of the

public notice of your meetings, official

meetings of a public body. That's a

proposed agenda that's visible both

outside on the um bulletin board as well

as um posted on the website. There's a

requirement that it include the date,

time, and location of the meeting. Um

and yeah, those are generally managed um

by staff and but that's part of the

public notice that's required under SECL

125. Um for special or rescheduled

meetings, we also need to notify the

media. Um,

in 2026, they adopted a new statute that

said that the proposed agenda for these

public meetings or official meetings

must list all items and must describe in

sufficient detail to reasonably inform

the public of the official business or

public policy intended to be considered.

Um, so that just really the stat the

legislature thought it was a good idea

to tell these public bodies, you know,

you really need to make sure that your

proposed agenda gives gives sufficient

detail to the public to let them know

what's what you'll be considering and

what decisions might be made. I think

this is something that the council

already had a a robust um means to do.

your agendas are um well put are there's

a lot of time and energy by staff to put

the agendas together as well as to

include the attachments. So um I think

this stat um the statute doesn't change

anything that the city was already

doing.

Um, pursuant to SECL1-25-1,

um, public comment, there must be a time

reserved at every official meeting for

public comment, limited at the public

body's discretion as to the time allowed

for each topic and the total time

allowed for public comment, but not so

limited as to provide for no public

comment. Um, so basically this just

requires a time for public comment at

your um official meetings and you can

limit the time but obviously you can't

limit the time so much as to totally

limit it.

Um,

meeting materials. This is found in a

different section of the code, but it's

relevant here. Um there's a requirement

that we have under the open record

statutes to make certain materials

relating to an agenda item available to

the public. That's part of the public

notice, right? Um to say that like this

is something that the council is going

to consider. Um here's something that

they will be provided to the the board

in advance. Um and that's usually just a

posted on the agenda as an attachment to

the agenda. Um, of course, privilege

materials or those subject to an

executive session are exempt.

Um, if if there's something that comes

in at the last minute, um, and it's not

able to be posted on the board's on the

council's website, um, we need to have a

printed copy available in the meeting

room while you're considering it. That

doesn't really come up very often

because we're staff are really good at

getting that um, posted on the board's

website or on the council's website.

Okay. And finally, um, as you know, that

there is a provision for the official

meetings to include a closed session or

an executive session. They must be held

for only approved purposes that are

lined out by SDCL1-25-2.

Um, here are some of the most commonly

used examples of reasons for an

executive session.

Um, in 2026, the stat the legislature

clarified some of the requirements for

executive session, such as you must

state in the motion, you must refer to

the section of the code that you're

relying on to support the reason for the

executive session. You must state that

in the open meeting. Um, and then the

vote to go into executive session must

be passed by a majority vote of the

members. And if it's not unanimous, then

a roll call vote. Um so those were

already practices again that the council

has done but that was part of the um

clarification by the legislature this

year.

Um discussion during the executive

session is restricted to the purpose

that's specified in the motion and then

any official official action of course

of the council needs to be taken in the

open meeting. Um

so that's the summary of what um I have

for you. Um hopefully that's

um sufficient for the legislature to

show that you have been properly

educated on open meeting statutes. If

you ever have any questions about things

as they come up or um things that

happen, absolutely reach out um to our

office um and we can talk you through

it. [clears throat]

>> Thank you, Carla. Go to Councilman

Maher.

>> Yes, Carla. I have a question. I thought

I saw in there that the legislature has

said that if it's not a unanimous vote,

we have to do a roll call, but I don't

believe we do that all the time.

>> That's for if you when you go into

executive session.

>> Oh, okay. Thank you. Sorry.

I think you're right. We don't do that.

No one's ever desented.

>> Yeah.

>> So,

>> okay. We'll change that.

>> We'll see. Especially I told Stephen to

be ready in case you're presiding.

Um,

anything else from the committee

members?

>> Motion to acknowledge.

>> There's a motion to acknowledge by

Layman and a second by Roberts. All in

favor?

>> All opposed? Motion carries. Next is

item 13 from the finance office,

introduction and first reading of

ordinance number 6758,

an ordinance amending title two of the

Rapid City Municipal Code to move the

community enrichment division to the

Department of Finance. And I think we'll

go to the Finance Director.

>> Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Uh, this

is just a cleanup ordinance for um about

three and a half years now. Uh, the

community enrichment uh division, which

is essentially our community development

block grant uh division has been a part

of the finance office. Um that division

works handinhand with our grants

division um fulfilling not just the

community development block grant but

also other grants as well as doing a lot

of um capital improvement uh project

management for other departments as

well. It's just uh notifying within the

ordinance that it it the division has

been moved.

>> There's a motion to approve by Tang and

a second by Roberts. All in favor?

>> All opposed? Motion carries. Item 14,

second reading and recommendation of

ordinance number 6754,

an ordinance regarding supplemental

appropriation number five for 2026 in

the amount of 6,131,68658.

We'll go back to the Finance Director.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair. There have

been no changes since the first reading.

Again, these were just purchase orders

that were entered into in 2025

um that were included within the 2025

budget, but now that uh they were closed

out in 2026, we just need to add the

money into 2026.

>> Motion to approve by Roberts and a

second by Layman. All in favor?

>> All opposed? Motion carries. Next, we'll

go back to city attorney's office for

resolution number 2026-081,

a resolution amending the policy of the

city of Rapid City to defay the cost of

cleaning of property damaged by sewer

backups.

Um, Miss Kushman, please.

>> Um, thank you. I'm going to, um, let our

risk management staff member,

speak to this, um, change in policy as

reflected in the resolution.

Thank you. Uh this resolution is uh an

amendment to a 2019 resolution that was

established. Um some of you may remember

um there was a resolution back in 2019

that established um

uh a cleanup um I lost my train of

thought. Sorry. Um, basically it was to

help defay the costs of sewer backups um

that occur. We during that year we had

several um backups because of um the

huge storms that we had um it charged

our um [clears throat] our sewers and

caused quite a few backups that year. As

you can see in the memo that I provided,

it has um we had actually 53 and um we

offered um assistance to those

properties. The resolution that's before

you today is going to be um basically to

um amend it for the $4 per square foot

that the 2019 resolution offered. um it

will move that to $8 per square foot due

to um inflation and obviously since um

2020 we as we all know things have um

increased in cost. Um the cost of

cleanup has also increased and that is

something that I hear often um from

citizens that you know you know they're

they're thankful for the $4 per square

foot but it's not enough. Um, so this is

something that I've had on my radar for

quite some time and um to bring this

forward finally is actually kind of

great for me because it's it'll be a

little bit easier to have those

conversations. Um, we did add

another um section to the to the

resolution that was not in the 2019

resolution. Um, we included that we're

we're asking property owners to then use

partial partial of that $8 per square

foot to install some sort of a backflow

um pretor to help protect their

properties. Um, this is also something

that will be checked out and and if

there is any kind of subsequent cleanup

or a subsequent backup after they

receive any kind of funds, they will

have to, you know, the city will have to

double check and make sure that they had

this because if they did have it in

place and it was functioning and they

still had it back up, then they would be

eligible. if they did not put it in,

then they would um not be eligible under

the resolution for a second um type of

claim.

Um that's basically uh what this new

resolution is going to be that we did

not change much else than that. Um it is

$8 per square foot affected square foot.

So um I'm not sure if there are

questions about the process. I'm happy

to answer those um as to how they get to

me and how I apply the resolution. If

there's questions on that, I'm happy to

answer those. But that's the gist of it.

>> Okay. Thank you. We'll go to

Alderman John Roberts. Thank you very

much. And I don't know if you can answer

this question or [City Engineer] can answer this

question or [staff member] can answer this

question, but has anybody done any

research on what the cost of these

backflow preventers is going to be? Yes,

we um when we met to discuss this, we

did have a meeting with utility

maintenance and the water department to

just go over if this was even something

that was feasible. Um depending on the

type of backflow preventor, it can be a

range of a hundred to $300.

>> So where do they put these backflow? Do

you know, [City Engineer]? Do you know where they

put these backflow preveners?

>> In the house.

>> In the house. Okay. All right. I was

going to say there's no way you could do

that if you have to tear up the floor.

>> No, no, no. It's not anything like that.

It's um

>> that was just my concern since we're

making them do that if it was too cost

prohibitive. And you know, if it is that

cheap to do and we have that few, maybe

it should be something written wr

written into the ordinance where the

city would take care of that for the

homeowner. In the long run, it would

probably be a savings possibly to the

city.

Anyway, just food for thought. Thank

you.

>> Okay. Um, no, Dr. Tang, I guess, wants

to speak.

>> Thank you, sir. Um, thank you for your

work on this. I really appreciate it.

Um, and a quick shout out to Councelor

Leman, who very thoughtfully and

conscientiously pushed for this forward,

too, in coordination with your office.

Um, I do have a question regarding

timing.

uh in terms of uh

kind of when it was done last time, my

understanding was it was kind of backed

up to encompass the year and I know

there was discussion whether this time

we would do a similar sort of thing.

>> Yes.

>> Where did that land or did you need

direction from us on that or

>> Yes. Um, I am looking for some direction

as to whether or not you want me to

apply this um toward the I believe I

think we've only had four this year so

far. Um, so it would be I would go back

and retroactive

um issue them a second check, but then

also notice them that they would have to

put in the backup, you know, they would

have to adhere to

>> and that would fit the pattern of what

we did last time.

>> Correct.

>> So that to me makes um a lot of sense.

And would that logistically be

burdensome for for your office to

contact those four? And

>> well, in 2019 it was um we like I said

in 2019 it was um a record year if you

would like to say that. And it was um I

sent out many many letters to um

homeowners that had backups that didn't

even contact us. And I also sent out um

follow-up letters basically saying,

"Hey, you're eligible for some extra

money, so you still want it?" You know,

type thing. Um and obviously they were

very excited about that. Yeah.

>> And um but yes, that would I mean given

there's that there's only four currently

for this year um it would just lit

literally be a letter that I would send

out to the homeowner notifying them of

this change and you know explaining

explaining the differences and what they

would be you know that they're do a

check

>> given the precedent of that. That would

be my recommendation. Uh thank you.

Hey, we're going to go back to

Councilman Roberts.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you very much. And I did see that

in your staff recommendations where

you're asking whether or not be

retroactive or um and I would agree too

that we should do this retroactively.

You know, looking at the numbers since

we've started this

program in 2019, we've only paid out 85.

So if we would pay for this for the

people going forward, theoretically, you

know, we would have only paid roughly

around $21,000, which is a drop in the

bucket in six years of, you know, of our

city finances. I think it would be a

good step forward because for some

people $300 is a lot of money and if

they can't afford to pay that and they

don't and they have another backup then

they're stuck and I think that this

would be something that could be very

beneficial to our citizens because I

know that in 2019 I believe a lot of

these came in in one area didn't they?

>> Mhm. And I believe that area was ours,

Lance, if I remember correctly.

So, you know, a lot of the people in my

ward 300 bucks is a big deal, especially

if you're you are on a fixed income,

you're elderly, you know, and

a lot of these, even though they're

getting $4 or $8 a square foot now,

that's only co covering a quarter of the

cost for them to clean it up. So, adding

another

small amount of money that I think the

city could endure. I think that we're

just kind of adding insult to injury.

So, I would recommend to my colleagues

to make a change to let the city, you

know, bear the cost of putting in the

valve. Anyway, that's my opinion. Thank

you.

>> So, it wasn't a motion to amend it or

>> No, I didn't make a motion yet. I

thought maybe you'd want to discuss it.

I Okay. Maybe if not, I would be happy

to make a motion.

>> Okay. Well, first we're going to go back

to the city attorney.

>> Thank you. Um I just wanted to make um

to make a suggestion. Well, to make a

statement and to make a suggestion. Um I

with regard to this backup resolution, I

just like to clarify for the record that

that um this resolution is for times

when the city is not deemed to be

responsible for the damage. This is a um

payment that we make in a consideration

of the unfortunate situation. If if if

there's a situation where we're

negligent and they bring a lawsuit, we

pay the entirety of the damages. Um, and

that's a different kind of situation,

but this resolution is just for times

when there is an unfortunate sewer

backup and the city council has for a

long time said that's really

unfortunate. We're going to help you

defay the cost of cleanup. Um and the we

we talked about when we met the timing

of the payments and the tie to the

backup um

the backup pretor backflow pretor and

the way the resolution is written is

really we we're not going to require the

backflow preventor to be installed

before we pay you. we pay you with the

expectation or we pay the homeowner with

the expectation that if they're going to

submit a second claim in the future,

they're going to need to use some of

that money to install the backflow

pretor. And um so I think we were we did

that carefully to out of a recognition

that people don't ne might not

necessarily have the cash on on hand to

do that plumbing work, but they it might

be to their benefit to use some of what

they receive from the city to do that

backlo pretor for for their own need.

You know, nobody wants this to happen to

their home. Um so

um that was kind of an intentional

decision and that's how we thought that

would work. If the um if the council is

interested in in paying some additional

money for that backflow pretor, I think

um just adding a dollar figure into the

policy that says we'll also pay you $300

for you to install a backflow preventor

might be an easier way to do it

logistically rather than the city's

going to make sure you do this or the

city's going to require you to do this

and provide proof. Um, just thinking

through the logistical parts of that. My

that would be my recommendation just be

to add that dollar figure into the into

the resolution. [clears throat]

>> Thank you. We'll go back to John

Roberts.

>> Thank you very much. And Carla, this is

a question for you then. Could we add in

where the city would reimburse

the

person that's getting reimbursed

$300 if they install a backflow

preventor? That way we're not just

giving them $300 and they may pocket it.

We're going to make sure that they get

it and they get it done.

>> I think that would work.

>> Okay. Go to said the attorney.

Yeah, I I think that would be

acceptable. We can make that if the if

the group makes that amendment, we would

update the resolution before Monday

night.

>> Go to Councilman Maher.

>> Yeah. I just I just think that it should

be a reimbursement program, right?

You're not going to just pay them

upfront because they say it's going to

cost, you know, $1,100. We say, "Okay,

give us have it done and then give us

the invoice and we'll reimburse you." Is

that right?

I I guess I think um we would do some

research, but I I I would recommend that

we have a maximum amount that we

reimburse them for um rather than

allowing just a straight reimbursement

for whatever it costs

>> up to the $8.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Wait, go back go back to John through

this.

>> Yep.

>> Okay. I want to make a motion

to approve this with an amendment

to add

up to $500 to put in a backflow

preventor,

which will be reimbursed

to the homeowner with proof to the city

that they installed the backflow pretor.

That might be a little long. You can

clear it up, Carla.

>> But I think that will work.

>> I'll second.

>> Okay. We have a motion by Roberts and a

second by Tamang to approve the

amendment, but or to to prove the

proposal, but also to amend

to reimburse a property owner up to $500

for installation of a backflow pretor.

upon proof that the installation

actually occurred. Is that close?

>> That's close enough to clean it up.

>> Just doing this on the fly.

>> So, we have a motion. And do we have a

second?

There a second by Tamang. All in favor?

>> All opposed? Motion carries.

That brings us to alderman items.

Resolution number 2026-084,

a resolution revising the order of

business for city council meetings. Um,

and

city attorney, do you want to address

that or you want me to address that?

>> Okay. So, I will address it then. Um

there was been [clears throat] some talk

about um

the efficiency of our city council

meetings and um how they're conducted

and

uh one of the things that came up was

that um there was needs for the public

in attendance at the meeting for

specific agenda items to be able to get

their matters heard prior to just

general public comment. And um there's

conversations with council leadership

and also with the city attorney about um

what we could do to um make our meetings

more efficient and friendlier to the

public. And um we did um take a look at

what Sou Falls does with their public

comment and they moved their public

comment toward to the end of the meeting

and the general public comment. um those

people those citizens who wish to speak

on specific items [snorts] will still

have them uh in the comment period

during those specific items. Uh but the

general public comment would be moved.

That's the primary um change that this

resolution does. Um

uh the whereas part of the resolution

says to better accommodate the needs of

the public in attendance at the meeting

for a specific agenda item and to

support the work of the city council.

The city council desires to move the

time for general public comment to be

held after the consent items,

non-consent items, and public hearing

items. And uh the council the resolution

also says the council finds that

revision of the agenda order as provided

herein serves a significant governmental

interest in the efficient conduct of the

council's business. And so that's the

resolution that you have before you and

I think it's pretty much

self-explanatory.

Um I guess any comments on that?

We'll go to Councilman Roberts.

>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'm going to

support this. This is something that

I've had quite a few different citizens

talk to me about since CO. So during the

COVID times, we had a lot of stuff that

came in on general public comment hours

of stuff and people that were actually

coming in to do public business were

sitting and waiting for that. We've had

that happen on a few specific items over

the last two or three years where, you

know, something didn't pass that upset a

group of people and they would come in

and they would come to general public

comment for hours and the people that

are actually coming in to do city

business, whether it be a sidewalk

variance or whether it be, you know,

zoning, whatever their

issue is, we'll have to sit through

hours of stuff because they can't miss

their item and they don't know how long

that that general public comment is

going to last. I would have supported

this 5 years ago. I hope we have support

to do it now. Um I think that it's the

right thing to do for the general public

that are coming to city hall to do

business. Thank you.

>> Thank you. Go to Councilman Maher.

Uh yes, I will support this, but I would

like to maybe amend it to include the

legal and finance and the public works

committee meetings and possibly even the

planning commission because uh you know

if you look at like the planning

commission sometimes their meetings are

three hours long and um I think the

people that go there to do business with

the planning commission uh deserve

prioritization in the queue and then if

they want to go back and uh then they

can listen to the public comment.

towards the end of the meeting. Thank

you.

>> Thank you. Go to city attorney.

>> Um I just wanted to speak to the

planning commission. They have um added

a time for general public comment at the

end of their meetings recently. Um so

that's currently how the planning

commission handles it.

>> Okay. Go to Dr. Tang.

>> I'd just like to make a comment on this.

Um when I heard these discussions about

this um really the goal is to serve the

people to allow them to talk at these

meetings that's like the mission and how

you do that gets a little tricky as my

colleague Mr. Roberts mentioned, do you

do you prioritize who who waits for who

and if you kind of tally the majority of

speakers? They're here to talk about

city items. And so it kind of makes

sense that they should be able to go in

an order that is predictable and

everybody still has the full opportunity

to speak. The full council is present.

All the directors are here. So it's

really the goal is just to allow the

constituents to express their views um

in the most efficient manner for

everyone. and I I will be supporting

this.

>> Okay.

>> To approve.

>> There's

>> Okay. There's a motion by Layman and a

second by Roberts to approve with the

amendment. Is that that uh Council Maher

or not? I mean, is the amendment

included in your motion?

>> Address.

>> Yeah.

Um I don't the the resolution doesn't

talk about the committee meetings. Um I

think if you wanted to make sure that

the change was made to the committees,

you could include that here um in the

motion. Um I'm not sure how those

meeting agendas are set. It's not the

same formality as a city council, but if

that's the what the council wants, I

would include that in your motion.

>> Yes, I'll do.

>> Okay. Yes. And I

>> second to respond with that.

>> Okay. Yeah. I just curious about um is

that something that those individual

committees should go ahead and vote on

or should we set that up for them?

>> Well, city attorney,

>> I think it could happen either way.

>> Okay.

>> We're all here.

>> Let's do it. Yeah.

>> Okay. There's a motion by Layman and a

second by Roberts to approve with an

amendment to include public works and

legal and finance. All in favor?

>> I. All oppose. Motion carries.

>> There's a motion to adjurnn by Tang,

>> second by Roberts. All in favor?

>> All oppose? Motion carries. We're

adjourned.

>> Hey, is there some elevate thing

tonight? I have it on my calendar. What?

>> An elevate thing on tonight?

>> Last night?

>> No, tonight.