Good evening and welcome to the city council meeting for Monday, July 6, 2026.

We will begin with a roll call and determination of quorum.

Lehman.

Roberts.

Petigrew.

Cris?

Fieberdorf.

Temang.

Here.

Evans.

Meyer.

We have a quorum.

Uh thank you.

Uh next I'm gonna note that we have Brian McDaniel here for the invocation.

Uh, and then that will be followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

Brian, are you here?

Okay.

We'll have a moment of silence this.

So if you're able and willing, would you please rise.

To the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

Liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Next we'll entertain a motion to adopt the agenda.

Got a motion by uh Roberts with a second by layman.

All in favor?

Any opposed.

The agenda is adopted.

Uh next we will move on to general public comment.

This is a three-minute period for in a time for the 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 do have a handful of speaker request forms for uh general public keep coming in, I think.

Sorry, you know, that's really good.

Okay, thank you.

Uh next, uh what I'll do is I'll say your name, you'll come up, and then I'll tell the person who's next and on deck to be ready.

So the first speaker is Misty O'Dean, followed by Chris Stover.

I do have a rendering that I need to use.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Misty O'Dean.

I'm here as a resident who cares deeply about the safety and future of our community.

The Campbell Street and East North Or Street intersection is one of the busiest corridors in Rapid City.

Residents experience congestion, long waits, and recurring crashes as our city continues to grow, these challenges are likely to increase.

If the study concludes that a roundabout is not the best solution, then we will know that if it demonstrates significant safety and organizational benefits, we will have a have taken an important step improving on Rapid City's key intersections.

I also do have a full full proposal done up with renderings and statistics, also from national DOT on the safety measures and all that with the having a roundabout in place.

I thank you all so much for your time, and I hope you'll take the time to consider my recommendation.

Mesti, thank you very much.

Appreciate that.

Chris Stover, you're up next, followed by Mark Thalaker.

Looks like I had a couple of my names, so I didn't know which one.

No, you're you're good in there.

Thank you, uh, mayor and city council.

Uh, my name is Chris Stover, and I'm your current chairman of Friends of Rhapsody Parks, and my counterpart, Ben Schumacher is also on the board.

Uh, and we are here to offer our uh recommendation and endorsement of the long-range management plan of the parks.

Uh we appreciate uh the amount of financial push to it, uh, the amount of thought, the amount of work, the amount of thought that went into the entire program to be able to figure out where our parks are and what needs to be happening out there.

Uh, as we review the document, uh I see it as kind of like a menu.

You can go to Denny's, and I'm going to be able to choose off my menu and say, you know, this looks good for me right now.

And I love the idea that the department will be able to look at that and see what's appropriate at what time to be able to help appropriate or prioritize what projects to be done, as well as if there's any benefactors that are out there that may have financial means to be able to help the parks that might be able to fit in with some kind of uh improvement to our parks.

I think the inventory that was done uh was really really well done.

I think the contractor did a fine job, uh, and I believe that it is going to be a good opportunity for the city to be able to move forward with our parks.

Good evening, I'm Ben Schumacher, and uh as Chris said, I'm on the board as well.

Um, I also want to say thank you.

Um, my two sons grew up in Rapid City and have enjoyed Vicky Powers, Memorial Park, Wilderness Park, Cory Park, just to name a few.

Um, and because of that, I wanted to be involved in it as well.

Um, I think it's a fantastic infrastructure to keep investments in.

Um, and through our travels across the country, we've seen communities that have put investments into their parks, and those communities flourish and not just the city center, but um elsewhere because of their investment in the natural parks that they have.

So, again, thanks for the time tonight.

Thank you for putting that out, and and uh thanks for for the plan.

Much appreciated.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Uh, next up, Mark Thallacker, followed by William Wagner.

Good evening, Minister.

I mean mayor.

Um I would like to share some concerns I have about the role of patriotism and public pledges in our civic life.

Last meet time we met was about three weeks ago, and after the meeting, I was talking with Jason, and he he said patriotism is good.

Well, that's kind of a blanket statement because there are places where patriotism isn't good.

But fascism is one of those areas where you might want to be careful about patriotism.

I love this country.

I believe one of America's greatest strengths is that we are free to think for ourselves, to disagree respectfully, and to question our own institutions.

Those freedoms are not weaknesses, they are foundations of a healthy democracy.

My concern is that throughout history, governments and political movements of many kinds have often used patriot patriotic symbols, slogans, and pledges to encourage loyalty that can sometimes replace independent thought.

History shows us that people can be encouraged to equate the love of country with agreement with those who happen to hold the power at the moment.

These are not the same thing.

A pledge is a promise.

Before making a pledge, every person should have the freedom to consider its meaning and whether they wish to make it.

Patriotism isn't, in my view, is strongest when it is freely chosen, not expected through social pressure or habits.

We should encourage citizens, especially young people, to understand our constitution, our history, which is sorely under attack if you haven't realized how much the president administration has been stripping our history from our history books.

And our civic responsibilities.

Loving our country should include the freedom to acknowledge its successes as well as its failures.

And we have plenty of failures.

You don't want to strip those away and forget about them.

A nation grows stronger when its citizens can ask difficult questions without having their loyalty questioned.

We should make room for people who chose choose to participate in patriotic traditions, and for those who choose not to.

Both can be loyal Americans.

Our community is the strongest when we value thoughtful citizenship over unquestionable confirmation.

And when we judge one another by our actions and our characters and our commitments to the common good.

Mr.

Wagner.

You just felt that Kittrick Jeffries.

Followed by Matt Nas.

Mr.

Mayor, members of the committee, my name is Kittrick Jeffries.

I'm one of the owners of Puffy's Dispensary.

Puffy's recently received a letter from Finance Director Andy Ainsley informing us that our dispensary license at 2545 Emerson Lane was quote deemed forfeited.

No notice, no hearing, just forfeited.

Rapid City renewed this license in December 25, approved a conditional use permit, and a transfer request in February of 26, and then told us we lost the license in March of 26 by a letter.

Mr.

Ainsley's letter claims that our license at 2545 Emerson Lane is forfeited because Puffy's was not operational by March 4th of 26.

The state confused us, and we immediately began to dig into the facts.

Here are the facts.

The March 4th date appears to come from an email from Rap City employee Heidi Weaver, where she indicates that she is sending us a PDF of a license because she thought, quote, we would need it for our state license.

However, we did not need it for our state certificate.

We did not have our state certificate until April 1st of 25.

We could not have a local license on March 4th because we did not have a state certificate, a requirement of your ordinance.

We began selling medical marijuana at this location in March of 26.

We have our local license.

We have our state certificate, and both entities approved our plans for this location.

Both planning and zoning and the State Department of Health reviewed and approved these business plans.

Mr.

Ainsley's letter is based on erroneous fact, not supported at all by the law.

If we have to go to court, we will have to do that.

But I first wanted to make you aware of this issue in hopes that that outcome can be avoided.

We just finished another election here.

A key theme I heard in that election from all candidates was a promise to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars.

I suggest that this is not good stewardship of taxpayer dollars or employees' valuable time to put Rapid City into a position where it could get sued on a clerical error and on a business plans that Rap City approved less than six months ago.

The ask is very simple.

The resolution simply instructs Mr.

Ainsley to retract and nullify this letter.

I appreciate your time and I'll be around for questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Matt, you're up next.

William, we'll get to you at the very end, sir.

Okay, thank you.

And that'll be followed by James Bialata.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, members of the council.

My name is Matt Nas and I'm an attorney for Puffy's.

The March 4, 2025 email from the city to Puffy's attaching a dispensary license could not have legally been an issuance of that license.

No state certification had yet been obtained.

The state license wasn't issued until April 1st, 2025.

Rapid City Municipal Code, Section 5.74.050A states in part that those establishments who obtain a provisional license from the city and the state registration from the department may obtain an annual license from the city, end quote.

This very clearly requires a state certification prior to issuance of a city license.

The city has taken this position previously, stating in litigation between the city and puffies regarding other licenses that, quote, a prerequisite for a valid local license is an active state certification, end quote.

The state did not issue the license for Rapid City Dispensary 2026-11 until April 1st, 2025.

Operation operations commenced pursuant to that license on March 30, 2026.

On April 2nd, 2026, three months after the city had renewed the license through December 31, 2026, the city's correspondence claimed that the license was, quote, issued in error and is hereby rescinded as invalid.

The reason provided was that the license was originally issued on March 4, 2025, and operations were not commenced within a year of that date.

The correspondents closed by stating, quote, therefore, on March 30, 2026, when you applied for the annual license on Emerson Lane, the license was already deemed forfeited, and the business shall not operate.

South Dakota law recognizes a license holder's right to a hearing consistent with the guarantees of due process prior to revocation of a license.

Those due process guarantees include notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Puffy's was provided no such due process regarding license 2026-11.

The city cannot choose to interpret its ordinances differently when the city believes one interpretation is advantageous as compared to another interpretation.

The interpretation must be consistent.

The ordinance requires a state certification prior to issuance of a city license.

And the city has affirmatively affirmatively, pardon me, invoked this position in litigation.

The city license that issue could not have lawfully been issued until after April 1st, 2025, the date of the state certification.

The city issued a new annual license 2026-11 on January 1st, 2026.

And the dispensary was operational within one year of April 1st, 2025, the date of the state certification.

The correspondent steaming license 2026 forfeit was without legal authority and creates a gray issue for Puffies.

Puffies respectfully request this council adopt a resolution confirming the validity of Rapid City Dispensary License 2026-11 and acknowledging that the ostensible forfeiture of that license was improper.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, James Spiolotta, followed by Angelo Shiraldi.

Hello, my name is James Biolata.

Today I had a pleasant meeting with community development up in the engineering area.

This is after I already came to City Council last year and informed you that Main Street Square was operating illegally.

They had been denying access to those with service animals and denying access to those that are disabled on public walkways to public restrooms and other facilities that are listed in the lease from Rapid City to the bid board as a public plaza.

This is a grave concern because the bid board is an agent of the government.

They are your agent to operate the plaza, as is Main Street Square, a division of economic development and visit Rapid City, your economic development and marketing arm.

They are all government actors who are going out of their way to deny the Americans with Disabilities Act to public facilities.

This isn't even legal in private businesses.

I can't deny somebody with a service animal to come to my private business.

Yet they're preemptively doing this regularly and doing it in writing from their own web page.

Beyond that, we also discussed how they're violating each of the five parts of the First Amendment in writing from Main Street Plaza.

They deny the right to protest, they deny certain press, they deny freedom of speech and expression, they denied political events, and they denied religious events.

They nailed all five parts of the First Amendment illegally.

What the heck is going on?

I beg you to look into this and cancel their contract.

You are open to such litigation on a monumental scale from every member of the community, and you already got busted this year because they were caught denying people the right to petition on Main Street Square.

You've got to be kidding me.

All five parts of the First Amendment violated in writing from their own documents, published even today.

I warned this council, I warned them, I warned them almost a year ago.

You have failed to act.

Notice was given.

And then when it gets worse, your Rapid City cops actually testified in court that they didn't know a public walkway was public property, that it was up to a judge to decide.

Congratulations, Sergeant Chris Hunt, you are this year's despicable officer of the year.

That he has no idea it's up to a judge to decide if a public sidewalk is a public right away.

You've got to be kidding me.

How dare you?

How dare all of you?

And then yet to prosecute somebody for being on a public sidewalk, you take the cake.

Angelo, you're up next, followed by William Wagner.

Happy belated hot dog day.

We want to go ahead and look at that there.

You know a country's in trouble when you got uh oh, does it work with their phones?

No.

You've got your president behind the foot law or football bulletproof glass.

Celebrating.

So uh I just got a few things to say, but I'll kind of touch up on some of the what people are saying here.

Um all the administrations since 2000 that have been solely eroding your rights.

And uh I drove in my truck in Colorado for a long time in the mountains, and um it was hard to access some of the small towns, like say Avon.

I used to try to get to the Walmart in Avon next to Bell, and the semi-trucks, you're gonna have to build a really huge roundabout because the semi-trucks would just literally just tear up the curbs, the outside of the curb, cars would sit there and honk and go crazy because they couldn't get around you because you're you're taking up two lanes as you're turning.

So, unless you got a really good roundabout, it won't work.

So, now on to the I guess clerical errors.

That's a good word.

Clerical errors can be very costly.

Um, and in my situation, well, um the clerical error that I'm up against is a felony uh explosions, arson.

Well, that's what my my transportation workers identification credentials calling it is arson.

That's the card that you need to get into all the highly sensitive ports and uh airports and rail yards and shipyards.

And I was one of the first people in the country to get one.

And they're that's what they're calling it.

So if you're if you're gonna start charging people with felony for uh cleaning wood up in their yard or attempting to clean up their yard from the the windshield storms that we had last winter, you might want to get your clerical uh codes right.

Um reckless burning, uh arson explosions, terrorism, what I don't know, something like that.

So if that's gonna be the case, well then we're gonna have to look at the new fire today in the jalapeno grill in hot springs.

We're gonna have to look at the Alpenal and Haze uh Alpina and Hazel Rot fires in Custer that started in somebody's backyard and burnt like 5,000 frickin' acres.

Uh I'm knowing no, I can't find nothing on that one.

The Sundance Fire on Argyll Road a month ago.

I looked down by Custer too, so I see all these.

I didn't do it.

There's other people probably doing that.

The Cowdy Flats near Rockerville.

Um, still no word on who did that one.

Um somebody probably light a sparkler.

The Rapids Valley one uh on Cattle Drive 4226, two people injured, 438 a.m., probably a cigarette.

Anybody charged with terrorism or arson for that one?

And the Kyle, South Dakota Senior Home One.

Sir, your time's up.

Thank you.

We better look at the case.

William Wagner, uh, followed by Mark Millar.

Our lawyer is welcome.

Thank you.

My phone was accidentally abducted.

Okay.

The final shielded speech.

Good evening.

My name is William Wagner, resident and state constitutional advocate.

I'm filling this formal uh objection regarding structural violations of South Dakota Codified Law, Chapter 21-10 by the proposed high-density data center facility.

This notice is submitted under South Dakota Codified Law 3-24-6, protecting citizens, furnishing good faith infrastructure data.

Furthermore, these statements constitute protected public expression regarding a matter of public concern with a governmental proceedings fully protected under South Dakota's Uniform Public Expression Protection Act.

The developers claimed a closed loop designed to bypass municipal water usage concerns.

However, the laws of physics dictate that if a facility of this scale does not utilize water for evaporating cooling, it must rely entirely on air-coat infrastructure to reject heat.

According to the Open Compute Project, the global authority on advanced status center hardware facilities operating without water towers are forced to use the lot utilize massive equipment to reject server heat.

This engineering approach simply trades a potential water footprint for a severe localized noise footprint.

The resulting industrial infrastructure creates a continuous low frequency sound profile.

This directly triggers South Dakota Straight Data Center public nuisance laws under South Dakota Codify Law 21-10 on three distinct fronts.

First, the one mile residential buffer zone.

State law explicitly restricts status centers with close proximity to residential zones.

The site layout must be audited.

Second, the 45 decibel property line ceiling.

Continuous operational noise cannot exceed 45 decibels at the nearest residential boundary.

Industrial infrastructure cannot meet this quiet standard without cost prohibitive containment.

Third, automatic misnuisance.

Under section four of the statute, any facility violating these thresholds is legally declared an automatic public nuisance, revoking its right to operate.

As public officials, you must recognize federal civil rights constraints.

Under Title 18, United States Code Sections 241-242.

It's a federal crime to act under color law to willfully deprive citizens of rights secured by the constitution or laws of the United States, knowingly permitting a statutory public nuisance that strips residents of their lawful property rights.

Directly risk directly risk triggering these federal protections.

Therefore, under constant uh conditional use permit or permit protocols, I formally demand the city require the applicant to provide a certified acoustic model, proving absolute compliance with the 45 decibel limit before any permits are issued.

I request this notice be entered into the permanent public record.

Thank you, William Wagner.

And y'all got served two papers.

The lawyer and um Miss Crest.

Thank you.

All right, next up uh Mark Millar.

That will conclude general public comment.

Well, how exciting.

Are you guys as excited as I am?

Do you love all these people showing up?

Gonna work on our rights here.

I know we've gained some uh some protections thanks to our legislature.

I understand that we're no longer gonna be able to just bring in numbers out of the air when we have our TIFFs.

I think that's a I think that's an important thing.

I think that's part of what's gone wrong with our TIFFs here.

It's the the numbers that are brought in, it's the amendments to not provide some of the things that are to be provided, and it's the amendments that also provide things that weren't in the initial design.

Um I'm excited talking to my fellow citizens of the city about how many trails were chasing your tail down now.

Um I spoke before because I think Ainsley, uh administrator Ainsley there, um brought in some really bogus numbers in the TIFF process in the last couple months.

And so I'm excited to see.

I hope somebody really does chase his tail a little bit to see what he's been saying.

I don't know who creates the rabbit hole, who digs it, who's the first one down it, and who's the one directing the rest of you down it?

But we you kind of run as a pack, you get convinced about something, and so but I have hopes for you.

I I think the the TIFF process is kind of winding down here.

Like I say, we're gonna get a little protection from the state.

And I also don't um I'm pretty much completely unaware of crappy land out there that somebody's trying to develop and so that we can fall behind the old rah-rah raw growth for growth.

No, when we give people TIFF money and we pay 60% of their initial cost on their project because the land that they bought first was crap land, it was never gonna be developed early in the process, and so the people that bought the cheapest land are now getting the most public monies.

I don't know how that works, but I think it's got to change.

You guys have got to realize a way to pay for the things we want based on the monthly revenue streams that we have every month.

We've got our CIBP money financed out five years right now.

That's why we can't build bridges at uh in the park.

That's why we're having to have we're having a multi-developed TIFFs so that we can extend Animoso, which should have been done years ago.

But uh, I think that the glory of it all is we're on your tail, so look over your shoulders, do your jobs right, and remember that people are looking out for you now.

Thank you.

That would conclude general public comment.

And we will move on to old business before we uh handle new business and open public comment for items one, or excuse me, open the non public hearing items one and two and open public comment for item one.

I have no speaker request forms for that items.

So we will close the public comment and move on to consent item one with the council make a recommendation.

We got a motion by layman and a second by Roberts to approve item one.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Uh we will now move on to non-consent item two and open the public comment for item two.

I have no speaker request forms for item two, so we will close public comment and I will look for a motion.

Motion by Bieberdorf with a second by Crist to approve.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

That takes us to the end of non-consent items for old business, and we will move on to public hearing items three through six and open the public hearing for items three through six.

I do have one speaker request form for item three from William Wagner once again.

Mr.

Wagner, as a reminder, you have three minutes.

Mr.

Mayor?

So I heard some stuff that bothered me, so I wrote this letter for the people there.

Members of the Rapid City Common Council and Penitent County Commissioners.

I'm here to draw an unyielding legal line on Sturgis Road.

Every morning, toxic limestone dust chokes our homes in the classrooms at St.

Elizabeth Seaton Catholic School.

Every single week, industrial blasting rattles our windows and cracks our foundations.

Mining operators claim state level permits give them a grandfathered right to destroy our properties.

Their lawyers are wrong.

Under South Dakota law, local police powers over public health and structural safety strictly supersede private commercial interest.

Failure to enforce your own codes carries immediate civil consequences.

First, we invoke the three-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction under South Dakota Codified Law 11-4-11.

Rapid City and Penitic County possesses joint zoning authority over this entire corridor.

We demand an immediate emergency interim moratorium.

I can't say that word under South Dakota Codified Law 11-2-64, freezing all pending and future extraction expansions and new permit authorizations, utilizing public office to protect corporate profits while knowingly permitting the physical destruction of private property constitutes an actionable deprivation of our constitutional rights under color of law.

Second, corporate lawyers will argue vested rights, but Penitent County ordinance section 320 is ironclad.

No conforming uses cannot expand past their historical footprint without triggering modern mandatory permit reviews.

Furthermore, section 321, parentheses one establishes a strict 300 foot buffer from any residential district.

This buffer is a statutory wall, cannot be waived, variances cannot be granted, and it applies to the entire industrial parcel boundary, not just the active pit.

Third, we strip their air quality defense under joint air quality ordin ordinance number 12, section 108.

Fugitive silica dust crossing property lines is a public nuisance per se in a physical property trespass.

This explicitly bypasses federal clean air act preemption, triggering immediate stop work orders and personal civil civil liability for property damage.

Finally, under Penitent County ordinance section 321, parentheses one, section B, the continuous burden of proof sits entirely on the applicant to conclusively prove operations do not injure neighboring land, use or impair property values by withholding unredacted systematic data, blasting frequencies, and structural impact projections from city and county engineers.

These operators have failed their burden of proof.

This board has the absolute legal authority to revoke their permits today.

Your oath is to the children of St.

Elizabeth Seaton and the homeowners of Penitent County, not corporate profits.

Shut down the loopholes, enforce the codes, and stop the blasting.

And I see y'all laughing at us.

No more.

Thank you, Mr.

Wagner.

We will close the public hearing up for items three through six, but council uh item two was a non-consent items.

I need to read that end.

So before we move on to item three, I've got to read it and we'll re-vote on that item.

Uh item number two, second reading and recommendation of ordinance number six seven three three, an ordinance amending clerical errors in section two point four-seven point zero five zero and two point four seven point zero six zero of the Rapid City Municipal Code.

Motion by Tamang with a second by Strowman.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carry carries.

Thank you.

Uh and we will now move on to non-consent public hearing items three through six, starting with item three.

Second reading, ordinance number six seven one eight, an ordinance amending section 17.06 of the Rapid City Municipal Code.

A request by City of Rapid City Community Development for GCC Dakota Inc.

for a rezoning request from South Dakota Codified Law 11-4-30.

District to cement plant district for property generally described as being located north of West Chicago Street, west of cement plant road to the terminus of Lean Street.

Got a motion by Roberts, the second by layman to approve.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item four, second reading of ordinance number six seven one nine, an ordinance amending section 17.06 of the Rapid City Municipal Code.

A request by City of Rapid City Community Development for GCC Dakota Inc.

for rezoning requests from South Dakota Codified Law 11-4-30 District to Mining and Earth Resources Extraction District for property.

Journaling describes as being located between Sturgis Road and Railroad Ride of Way, South of Pennington County Line and north of West Chicago Street and the southwest of the intersection of Sturgis Road and Hidden Valley Road.

I have Councilor Evans in the queue.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'm gonna actually vote against this.

Um not necessarily for all the reasons that Mr.

Millar sort of inferred, even though it wasn't necessarily for this particular thing.

Um I'm voting against it for this reason.

I think as we do these mining things that really affect our environment here in the city, we can do a better job of planning ahead.

For instance, they're going to be excavating uh perhaps hundreds of feet deep along rock rather than do those kind of reclamations that are required eventually, which creates a rather um generic sort of landscape where it used to be a beautiful landscape, and I remember what those neighborhoods looked like when I was in high school looking up the windows at Stevens High School, and there's an entire mountain that's missing there that used to be out the window.

And I think that rather than just uh approve these things and let them think about reclaiming, we could use some creative thought with our planning and perhaps reuse some of those pits as amphitheaters, uh, public parks, uh, swimming facilities, other things.

I think we need to be more creative about how we do these things and work with those developers because they're moving thousands and thousands of cubic yards of material that we couldn't afford to do to build such a thing, but with creative thought rather than just generic reclamation, we could come up with a facility that would really be an asset to the community.

So I'm just doing this as sort of a protest vote so we start thinking ahead and maybe work with some of those people that we um have something to show for this mining rather than just a hillside.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Evans.

Uh we got a motion by Roberts to approve.

Was that a second by Maher?

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

With one no, excuse me, from Councilor Evans, of course.

I may soon back.

Let's revote that.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right, two no's from Evans and Meyer.

Thank you.

And uh item five, second reading of ordinance number six seven two zero, an ordinance amending section seventeen point zero six of the Rapid City Municipal Code.

A request by City of Rapid City Community Development for GCC Dakota Inc.

for rezoning request from light industrial district to cement plant district for property generally discards as being located northwest of the intersection of industrial avenue and cement plant road.

Got a motion by Roberts with a second by Bieberdorf.

All in favor, aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item six, second reading of ordinance number six seven two five, an ordinance amending section 17.06 of the Rap City Municipal Code, a request by FMG Engineering for rezoning from low density residential district one to general commercial district for property genity described as being located south of the intersection of Addison Avenue and Healing Way.

Motion by layman with a second by Roberts to approve.

All in favor, aye.

Any opposed?

All right, motion carries.

Thank you.

Uh that takes us to the end of the non-consent public hearing items.

And uh item seven is a recognized councillor Pettigrew.

Well, Council President Pettigrew is not able to be with us this evening.

Uh just a brief comment for him.

Uh he's not here, but maybe he'll he'll hear this at some point.

Uh, first of all, we want to thank Councilor Pettigrew for his dedicated service to Rapid City.

I will tell you he is very passionate, um, very active.

Um, I can think of no other stronger supporter of the airport than Councillor Pettigrew.

And uh with his assistance, we were able to secure funding for that terminal expansion.

Also, thanks to the city council members present.

Um he's uh you know, staunch supporter, of course, of sidewalks and and responsible growth, and uh well, we've appreciated uh getting to know him more the past few years and his insights uh into the various decisions that have been made over the last three years.

Last three years uh we've made a significant decisions the last three years that'll shape our city for uh many generations, and he was a part of that.

So, Councillor Pettigrew, thank you for your service to Rapid City and all the best in your future endeavors, sir.

And Councillor Stroman would also like to make a comment.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yeah, I just want to um echo what the mayor said about um Councilman Pettigrew's service.

Um I'd be reminisced if I didn't bring it up.

I didn't know him at all before he began on City Council, but I found him to be a very thoughtful, intelligent, and as the mayor said, a very passionate advocate for the city of Rapid City.

He's a common sense guy who was not afraid to um buck the trend if it needed to be done, and uh I just think he showed really great leadership, and we did get some real significant things accomplished recently with his leadership, and I want to thank him for that and wish him the best.

Thank you.

I yield.

Thank you.

So thank you, Mr.

Pettigrew.

Uh well, now we are going to recess uh to swear in the newly elected city council members for Ward One, Josh Bieberdorf, Ward Two, Lindsay Secrets, Ward Three, Kevin Maher, Ward Four, John Roberts, and Ward Five, Laura Armstrong.

And so uh we will recess, get situated right over here, and then they will take their oaths of office, and we will reconvene when that's done.

Thank you.

Why think we're good.

Okay.

Please raise your right hand and repeat after me.

I state your name.

I John Roberts solemnly swear that I will support and defend.

The Constitution of the United States.

And the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.

And the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.

Against all enemies.

Against all enemies.

Foreign and domestic.

That I will bear true faith.

That I will bear true faith.

And allegiance to the same.

That I take this obligation freely.

That I take the obligation freely.

Without any mental reservation.

Without any mental reservation.

Or for the purpose of evasion.

Or for the purpose of evasion.

That I will faithfully.

That I will faithfully and impartially perform the duties of the office of alder person.

Of the office of Alder Person.

For the city of Rapid City.

South Dakota.

According to the law.

And to the best of my ability.

So help me God.

So help me God.

Congratulations.

Okay.

All right, we are reconvening after the taking of the OS.

Congratulations, City Council.

Now we will move on to election of the officers, and we would begin number with number nine, election of council president.

Do we have a nomination?

Council Evans.

I nominate Stephen Temang for President.

Stephen Temang nomination from Evans and a second by Meyer.

All right.

Counselor Secrets.

I'd like to nominate Councilman Kevin Maher for president.

Second.

All right, we got a nomination by Seacris with a second by Roberts for Kevin Maher for president.

Any other nominations?

Otherwise, we will close the nominations and move on to the vote.

The council members have sheet in front of them, and then we'll write the name, and then that will be collect collected by somebody.

Thank you.

No need for a recount.

Uh by a count of six to four, councillor Temang is now the council president.

Congratulations, Dr.

Temang.

We will m now move on to item ten, the election of council vice president.

Would someone like to make a nomination?

Counselor Evans.

I'd like to nominate Callie Meyer for Vice President.

Okay, got a nomination by Evans with a second by Maher.

Councilor Meyer.

The floor is yours.

Oh I'll just accept uh the nomination, and then I'd also like to nominate Laura Armstrong.

Thank you.

So Councilor Armstrong.

Um thank you, Miss Meyer.

Um, I will respectfully decline.

Okay.

So the motion fails for lack of second, and we are back on to one nomination from Councillor Meyer.

I'll move nomination C's because it gets too confusing this way.

Yeah, well, congratulations, Callie Meyer.

You're now the vice president of the city council.

Thank thank you all.

So now they're gonna do a quick uh switch-aroo of seats.

Uh three of you, you'll go down to Miss Meyer's spot and Dr.

Timang over here.

Congratulations to you.

Thank you.

Congratulations.

Okay.

Yeah.

We good to go.

Okay.

Now we will move on to non-public hearing items 11 through 60 and open the public comment.

For items 11 through 49, I do have a couple of speaker request forms.

The first one's from Trent Walters for item 21.

And I think you say you're here in case there's any questions.

Is that right, Mr.

Walters?

Yep.

Okay.

So council, please take a note of that.

Now on to item 26.

Uh Heidi Seaverdine.

Heidi, did I pronounce it correctly?

All right.

She is from our sustainability committee.

Well, congratulations for our newly elected councilman.

I'm the chair of the Citizen Standing Committee on Sustainability, and I'm here just to convey our support for agenda item number 26 for the EPA Recycling Grant.

We've we're really excited when this grant was awarded, and we really hope that the grant will increase partict public participation by making recycling available at gas stations, hotels, restaurants, and other businesses.

Increasing the convenience and availability of recycling very much.

It has been shown to increase participation in those programs.

We look forward to seeing the improvements in recycling that this grant proposes becoming a reality.

Recycling in rural areas such as Western South Dakota is not easy.

And I hope this council views recycling not as a challenge but as an opportunity to invest in the future and to converse conserve resources for future generations.

This presents opportunities for innovation and development of local industries and businesses and products using recycled goods as sustainable feedstocks.

So thank you for your time.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you for your work with the committee as well.

And that will conclude the public comment, and we will move on to consent items 11 through 49.

Would the council like to approve all these items or remove one for separate consideration?

Councilor Tamane.

21, please.

21.

Councilor Strowman.

26, please.

26.

Counselor Secrets.

22, please.

Any other items to be removed?

All right.

We have a motion by Bieberdorf to approve items 11 through 49, with the exception of 21, 22, and 26 with a second by Armstrong.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 21.

Approved request by Megan Hagen on behalf of Genesis Farms for variants to waive the requirement to install sidewalk along Catron Boulevard as required per 12.08.060 of the Rap City Municipal Code.

Councillor Tamein, or President Taming.

The floor is yours if you there you go.

Thank you, sir.

I'll move to approve if I can get a second like to hang out on the floor.

Okay, motion by Tomane with a second by Secrets to approve.

The floor is yours.

Appreciate it.

Um with these sidewalk variances.

I think there's um I've had a chance to converse with a lot of my colleagues.

I think we all agree that sidewalks are critical, public health infrastructure, um, and we want a walkable city.

I think we also all agree that uh there are certain circumstances in which we should grant variances.

I think the question that we're trying to struggle with is like what are the best practices?

And it seems like from my experience we're kind of all over the map on this.

Um with this particular one, I I think it a variance makes sense.

Um I had a good exchange with uh Director Tice and um Vicky Fisher was in on that too.

And I was wondering if I could get him to just kind of explain the major assets or the major obstacles as to why this particular variance made sense from his office's standpoint.

Okay, we will go to public works director Mike Tice.

Uh there you go.

Thank you, Mr.

President, Mr.

Mayor.

Um, so yeah, I I looked at this location as I do with all of these sidewalks, variance requests, and um as you stated, this one does not make a lot of sense from the physical location of where the sidewalk would have to go.

Um there's very steep ditches that fall off the edge of the highway down into the ditch.

Uh this particular location also has a pond that is really adjacent to the highway in the bottom of that ditch.

And so it's really impractical to put a sidewalk in this specific location.

There's also a power line that runs through there where really the only place that a sidewalk could go uh is where the power poles are.

So uh it just makes this location impractical overall.

Um, in addition to that, as you look at Catron Boulevard, um, it's really a highway location, and it's become more than just a residential street in Rapid City, it really is a highway uh through Rapid City at this point.

So um the only place to put the sidewalk would be on the edge of the sidewalk or edge of the road, which would not be a very safe location for the sidewalk either.

And I think these areas like this are better served through interior sidewalks along Fifth Street and some of the inter inter or interior corridor streets uh rather than on the highway.

But thank you, and I completely agree with that.

I think um the the change that I'm advocating for the thesis that I have is um when something like this occurs, it makes sense not to to grant a variance.

Um but I have um I don't know a few months ago or a month ago sort of directed legal to to look into another concept which is called a sort of a fee in lieu of concept.

And the idea is that just because you are not required to build a sidewalk or a piece of public pedestrian infrastructure due to a variance, there should be still some contribution to the general vicinity uh of the area for public pedestrian.

And I you know there's a lot of examples of this.

Um Austin has a fee tied to current sidewalk installation costs, um, and they they have a lot of case studies where that was effective.

Uh Port Angeles, Washington, just recently in April 2026 created a fixed fee per linear foot equivalent um for a fee for um variants, and then there's many others here as well.

Durham, North Carolina has a payment in lieu for required sidewalks that the city council actually sets on an individual basis.

Uh now right now our legal department has an awful lot on their plate.

This is not a high priority, um, but I have asked Megan to kind of keep an eye on it, and I know Kinsley Group's doing a great job investigating it, and it's my expectation that at some point down the road, it could be six months, it could be longer even.

Um, but when when available, I would appreciate something coming forward where we can say is this feasible here?

Um, because I think if we could make that little change, um, and I know that legalities get really tricky, but I think if we could make that little change, then that would carry on for many councils, and that could end up with quite a lot of public um pedestrian infrastructure improvement over time.

I yield, thank you.

Okay, councillor Evans and Councillor Maher, I actually bumped you out of the queue.

I'm gonna pop back in.

Don't take it personally.

Who's next?

Oh, I'm sorry.

All right, I agree with Dr.

Temang about this whole thing.

However, I would like to add a little bit to that.

And if we're gonna do these urban sprawl uh developments uh that spread the city out all over the place, that doesn't mean people stop walking.

And so there should be uh some kind of accommodation for pedestrian and bike traffic.

And if we're gonna approve those kind of things that put these widely spaced businesses and gigantic facilities that actually people do walk between uh for one reason or another, we need to have some kind of accommodation for that.

Now it may not be a long roadway, maybe behind it, maybe a landscaped bike path or something, but we need to come up with a plan and be consistent about that so we don't end up building these areas and then leaving it for the next generation to come up uh to solve the problem like we have out there with the Seventh day Adventist Church and the industrial park and all these other things.

We need to be a little more forward thinking.

There actually is a day after the day after tomorrow, and we need to be thinking that far ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, Councilor Maher.

Yes, I just have a question because looking at the plans, there's going to be a turn lane put in there.

I imagine it would be on the south side of Catron Island.

I just don't understand how you can put a turnal in there with that pond and the wetlands there, or am I is there not going to be a turn lane there?

We're gonna go to public works director Tice.

Um I there's already an existing turn lane that turns on to Fifth Street at this time, but there's not going to be any additional turn lane.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, the motion on the floor is to approve.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Uh we will move on to item 22.

Approve resolution number 2026-062, a resolution adopting the City of Rapid City's Department of Parks and Recreation.

Master plan.

Counselor Secrets, I believe you pulled this item.

The floor is yours, ma'am.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I pulled this item just to recognize and thank our uh parks and recreation team for the lift that went into uh the master plan creation.

This is our very first master plan in Rapid City history.

And also just to recognize our parks department and our recreation team as well.

But um for all the work that they've done this um this summer and and preparing for the festivities downtown and and making Rapid City beautiful.

We ask a lot of our parks team, and I don't think they get enough recognition.

So I just wanted to thank them for the work that went into this and our advisory council.

And there were a couple years worth of work that went into this plan, and we're very grateful for the results.

And I just think we could all be very proud of our parks and rec our parks uh division in the city and in our recreation team.

But I thank you.

Thank you.

Next, Councillor Strowman.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I'm gonna support this also, but I would want to just point out that um some of the comments that I received from citizens regarding this, talked about um maintaining the skating rink at Brayburn Park.

And I noticed that in on page 108 of the plan, it talks about a park plan to be revised as it goes into preliminary design.

And one of the improvements that they're considering is an ice rink in future plan renovations.

And so I would like to make sure that that I'm just mentioning it because when the time comes, I'd like to have it addressed again because I think that's something that we that's currently there and that can be beneficial in the future, and I don't know what the cost would be, but I'd like to see that developed if I if we can.

So I yield.

Thank you.

Counselor Evans.

Well, thank you.

Um as some of you know, I was really hoping we were gonna have a master plan of some kind, and I'm so happy that this has happened.

I do want to point out out though that just because we have one uh doesn't mean we always follow what we plan, nor does it mean that this thing is locked in stone and it has to be a working document, a living document that we can modify from time to time, and I don't feel it's necessarily all-encompassing.

I think there's some features that still need to be addressed.

Uh things like watering systems, and I don't know if that's in the overall master plan, and I missed it.

Um, but also maybe downtown facilities and things that um accommodate visitors to the city more than maybe this particular plan does, also, as I mentioned at legal finance last week.

Um when we do these things and we tend to overbuild parks, we tend to create maintenance uh expenses, and I think we should always emphasize the undeveloped natural sort of parkland that we have where kids can play and they can throw, you know, run their uh frisbees and whatever, rather than worrying so much about uh the infrastructure and the concrete and the you know shelters and stuff like that.

So I want to keep that in mind as we move forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Director Biegler would like to make a comment.

Sir, uh yes, thank you very much.

I appreciate the comments from uh all of you folks up there, and this uh this is a document that certainly wouldn't have happened without the uh support from City Council that we've received over the years.

And yes, to to your point about uh some of the uh the the elements that you'd like to see remain and maybe some additional things that weren't in the plan.

Yes, this is a a living document, and this is something that will evolve over time.

This is going to be a guiding document for our department going forward over the next 10 to 15 years, so that when we're looking at a a uh uh uh a proper way to spend tax dollars, we'll have a uh a roadmap ahead of us that that we can use and and can uh efficiently spend those uh dollars to get the most out of them.

And uh we thank you again for all of your support and hope you will support the adoption of this master plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Well, did I get a motion?

Second motion by Secrets with a second by is it Strowman or Evans?

All right, motion by secret, second by Evans to approve.

All in favor, any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 26 authorize the city to accept the solid waste infrastructure for recycling, otherwise known as SWIFER, uh discretionary grant from the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency in the amount of 497,000 4 million 977,265 dollars and delegate signing authority to the public works director.

And uh Counselor Strowman, you pulled this item, sir.

Thank you, Mayor.

And just for grins, I'm gonna call it five million dollars.

But um I'd move to approve, and if I can keep retain the floor, okay.

All right, we got a motion by Strowman with a second by Tamang.

The floor is yours, sir.

Um we had presentations by um uh public works director Tice uh last week in both um public works and in legal finance, and uh we were just really impressed by the work that had gone into this, the acquiring of this grant and the opportunities it gives us to um transform our recycling capabilities, as the Ms.

Sieberding said, um, the citizen who spoke tonight.

But obviously, public works director Mike Tice somehow got together with people that know a lot more about it than he does at this point, probably, and he got himself the information he needed to lead this department in in this decision and in this direction.

And I noticed that some of the staff expertise qualifications.

There are some people named in here.

I'm gonna read off their names, but I'm sure this by no means includes everyone that had a hand in this, but I just want to thank them.

Um Jeff Barber, Tori Fields, Rhea Hannon, Dave Yuha's, Jamie Tennis, and Lizanne Zeller.

And this is just another grant where we're able to use grant money to make improvements that we need in our in our public works division.

And I just, you know, hats off you guys for doing a really great job.

I'm just very very impressed with this, and I just can't say enough good about it, so I yield.

Thank you.

Well said, thank you, Mr.

Strowman.

Counselor Temang.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Yes, uh, very well said, and I echo the positive um comments regarding both the people and the process.

The one comment that I want to make that might provide um improvement is I I think when we were dealing with the garbage rates in that whole discussion.

Um, I I wish that there was more communication regarding the probability or the possibility of this grant hitting.

That was something that I feel like is a at least I was not particularly taking this into consideration.

I don't think it was well explained, and that's not the fault of any person, that's just a systems issue because I think that could have changed the way we looked at some of the rates, possibly.

So uh directionally, this is correct.

We need to be moving towards um better utilization of our recycling.

And I think the area may be for improvement from our standpoint to do better next time is if there's some grant or or anything really that could meaningfully change a vote.

Um we should really probably have that a little more on the forefront next time.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other comments?

Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion to motion by Secrets with a second by Maher.

Oh, did you did you move?

You're right, you're right.

Folks, I'm sorry, it's been a long weekend.

Um, so we had the original motion by Strowman and Teming, I believe, right?

Okay.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Uh that takes us to the end of the consent items.

We will move on to non-consent items 50 through 60 in open public comment for items 50 through 60.

I have no speaker request forms.

So we will close the public comment and move on to move on to item 50.

First reading of ordinance number 6728, an ordinance amending section 17.06 of the Rap City Municipal Code, a request by Avid 4 Engineering Inc.

for elevate Rapid City for rezoning request from General Commercial District to Light Industrial District for property generally described as being located north of Mall Drive, east of Haynes Avenue, and west of future extension of Maple Avenue.

Motion by Seacris with a second by Bieberdorf to approve.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 51, first reading of ordinance number 6729, an ordinance amending section 17.06 of the Rap City Municipal Code, a request by Avid 4 Engineering Inc.

for Elevate Rapid City for rezoning request from General Agricultural District to Light Industrial District for property generally described as being located north of Mall Drive, east of Haynes Avenue and west of the future extension of Maple Avenue.

Motion by Maher with a second by Criss.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 53.

First reading, or excuse me, 52.

First reading of ordinance number 6730, an ordinance amending section 17.06 of the Rap City Municipal Code.

A request by Abbott 4 Engineering Inc.

for Elevate Rapid City for rezoning requests from medium medium density residential district to light industrial district for property generally described as being located north of Mall Drive, east of Haynes Avenue, and west of the future extension of Maple Avenue.

Motion by Crist, second by Maher.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 53, first reading of ordinance number 6731, an ordinance amending section 17.06 of the Rap City Municipal Code.

A request by Abbott 4 Engineering Inc.

for Elevate Rapid City for rezoning request from General Agricultural District to Office Commercial District for property generally described as being located north of Mall Drive, east of Haints Avenue, and west of the future extension of Maple Avenue.

Motion by Layman with a second by Evans.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 54.

First reading of ordinance number 6732.

An ordinance amending section 17.06 of the Rap City Municipal Code.

A request by Avid 4 Engineering Inc.

for Elevate Rapid City for rezoning request for medium density residential district to office commercial district for property generally described as being located north of Mall Drive, east of Haynes Avenue, and west of the future extension of Maple Avenue.

Motion by Temang with a second by Secrets.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 55.

First reading of ordinance number 6723 and ordinance amending section 17.08.020 and 17.10.020 of the Rap City Municipal Code.

Permitted principle and accessory uses and structures.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 56.

A request by Long Branch Civil Engineering Inc.

for David Luton for preliminary subdivision plan for proposed lots 50A and lot 50B of Sweetbrier Heights, generally described as being located northwest of the intersection of Haven Street and Coving Street Covington Street.

The re recommendations to approve of stipulations.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 57.

A request by Tui Design Group for Solo Sailor LLC for preliminary subdivision plan for proposed lot 1A and lot 1B of Le Grand Subdivision generally described as being located southwest of the intersection of Eglin and North Elkvale Road.

The recommendations to approve of stipulations.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Motion by Seacris with a second by Maher.

All in favor?

Aye.

All any opposed?

Y'all are quiet.

All right.

The motion is approved.

Item 59.

A request by Advanced Design Engineering and Surveying Inc.

for Buffalo North LLC for a preliminary preliminary subdivision plan for proposed lots 1 through 4 of Block 1.

Lots 1 through 3 of Block 2 of Buffalo Crossing North Subdivision.

Generally described as being located northeast of the intersection of Highway 16 and Catron Boulevard.

The recommendations to approve of stipulations.

Motion by Maher for the second by Tamang.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 60.

A request by DC Scott Surveyors Inc.

for Shirley and Roland Mayer for preliminary subdivision plan for proposed lot 6A and lot 6B.

A pleasant view subdivision.

Generally described as being located on Crane Drive.

The recommendations to approve of stipulations.

Motion by Secrets with a second by Bieberdorf to approve.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

That takes us to the public hearing items 61 through 62.

And we will open the public hearing for item 61 and 62.

I have no speaker request form, so we will close the public hearing for those items and move on to consent public hearing items 61 through 62.

Move to approve both of them.

Second.

Motion by Roberts with a second by Tamang to approve item 61 and 62.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

That takes us to the end of the consent public hearing calendar.

And we have an uh necessary executive session tonight.

So I look for a motion to enter executive session.

Motion by Bieberdorf, second by Meyer to go into executive session.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

We're in executive session.

Thank you.

Do we have a motion to come out of executive session?

Motion by Roberts with a second by Meyer.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

We're out of out of executive session.

We have no need for staff direction.

So we'll move on to the bill list.

And for that, we will go to Finance Director Daniel Ainsley.

Total 108, one hundred and eighty-two dollars and twenty-three cents.

Any opposed?

Motion carries with one abstention from Meyer.

Item sixty-four.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Do we have a motion to adjourn?

All right.

We're going to give the motion to Roberts with a second by Meyer.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

We're adjourned.

Thanks, everyone.