OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Spearfish, South Dakota/City Council
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Spearfish City Council Regular Session - March 16, 2026

City Council — Monday, March 16, 2026
BodySpearfish, South Dakota
SessionCity Council
DateMonday, March 16, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:09:48

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.

Speaker 1

0:06

Okay.

0:07

Um we have an agenda to approve.

0:10

I don't have any changes to the agenda.

0:12

Is there a motion to approve?

Speaker 2

0:16

Second.

Speaker 1

0:17

We have a motion and a second.

0:18

All in favor.

Speaker 2

0:20

Aye.

Speaker 1

0:21

Opposed.

0:23

Motion carries.

0:24

And then just to note from council, any conflicts of interest with tonight's agenda.

0:29

But

Unassigned speaker

0:30

there

Speaker 1

0:30

might be need to be acknowledged.

0:32

I see none.

0:33

With that, we're going to have uh we have public comment.

0:36

And I did uh introduce some items uh regarding public comment in our study session.

0:42

Um that we're gonna make some changes for public comment and uh not only public comment but how we address items on the agenda.

0:50

So I guess go ahead and touch on a few of those items that I brought factually.

0:54

Uh there was obviously a lighter attendance at that meeting.

0:57

So I just want to make sure

Unassigned speaker

0:58

that

Speaker 1

0:59

uh people will get some clarity on this as we as we move forward.

1:03

Uh our uh in our study session, which is held on Wednesday nights before council, we post an agenda by 12 o'clock on Tuesday.

1:12

Study sessions are at 4 15.

1:14

The council agenda is part of that.

1:15

It's reviewed in that meeting, the council agenda for uh tonight was reviewed then.

1:20

So that's about six days, a little over six days in advance of that.

1:23

And then on Friday, the final council agenda is posted by 12.

Unassigned speaker

1:27

So

Speaker 1

1:27

there's three full days uh in a little bit of time in an afternoon to review that agenda.

1:33

So um, with the agenda out early, most the public's questions can be addressed with a call to any member of council, the mayor or one of the department heads.

1:41

There's been some um strong interest by citizens that the city is not as transparent as we could be, especially on items regarding spending taxpayer money.

Unassigned speaker

1:50

So

Speaker 1

1:50

I would like to lay this groundwork for a few months to see if we can resolve those concerns as follows.

Unassigned speaker

1:55

If

Speaker 1

1:55

a citizen has a strong opinion or wants a question asked in public by their council person, mayor for full disclosure, that would be an option if that person doesn't want to speak in public.

2:05

If a person would rather ask the question themselves at city council, they

Unassigned speaker

2:09

can

Speaker 1

2:09

send an email to our executive assistant or the mayor.

2:13

Um, and we we haven't set any time frame on that, but I'm looking at we would probably would want to do that by say 12 or one o'clock.

2:20

So either a department head or uh

Unassigned speaker

2:22

uh

Speaker 1

2:23

public official would be ready to address that item.

2:26

Um let's see, this was asked.

2:31

I I know that Sierra had asked some questions for an article, and I I don't know if she's got that published yet, but there were good questions.

2:37

She one of her questions was citizens ask questions in open session to give their neighbors a chance to hear some the same answers.

2:44

Does this method help serve that purpose?

2:46

And I responded yes.

2:47

We want to make sure the questions of financial impact definitely get out into the public, even if the person asking the question does not want to stand up at the podium.

2:55

We want to honor the public's

Unassigned speaker

2:57

right

Speaker 1

2:57

to have financial accountability, but for those questions that are more for clarification, it is possible that a response may

Unassigned speaker

3:04

be

Speaker 1

3:04

uh made just to that individual.

3:07

Um

Unassigned speaker

3:08

so

Speaker 1

3:08

we want to make sure that we're responding to those items in public.

Unassigned speaker

3:12

Um

Speaker 1

3:12

the Monday night meetings uh are for approving uh uh expenditures, contracts, ordinances, and other various items brought to the council for a vote and final decision.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Procedural████████████████16%
Public Works███████████████15%
Engineering And Infrastructure██████████████14%
Solid Waste Management█████████████13%
Public Engagement████████████12%
Land Development███████████11%
Budget Equity Analysis██████6%
Public-Private Partnerships█████5%
Tax Increment Financing██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Spearfish City Council Regular Session - March 16, 2026

The Spearfish City Council convened for its regular session on Monday, March 16, 2026, at 5:37 PM. Mayor Senden led the meeting, which featured significant public testimony regarding city transparency, approval of the fire training tower bid, and a detailed debate over solid waste fees leading to the denial of a proposed fee elimination. The meeting adjourned at 6:50 PM.

Consent Calendar

The council unanimously approved the consent agenda, which included the minutes from the February 25 study session and the March 2 regular session, temporary and permanent construction easements for the Mason Street Project (#2414), and the February 28 Treasurer's Report.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Mark Watson (Editor, Black Hills Pioneer) criticized the timeliness and effectiveness of the city's new communication protocols. He stated that questions sent on a Friday would not receive answers until after the Monday council meeting, and that the study session and regular council agendas were significantly different, containing major items the public had interest in. He provided the Green Acres road project as an example where his calls to council representatives were met with extremely limited responses, calling for a more direct two-way street in communication.
  • Jeremy Smith (287 Evans Lane) expressed that public engagement on large-scale plans, specifically the Comprehensive Plan and public works projects, often felt like a one-way street. He noted that public comments submitted during formal comment periods rarely seemed to be incorporated or discussed in a public setting and requested a better feedback mechanism for the public to see how their input was addressed.
  • Carolyn Ferrell (Executive Director, D.C. Booth Society) expressed gratitude to the city attorney and staff for the collaborative process in finalizing the 10-year agreement between the City and the Booth Society.
  • Doug Markworth (Cowboy Lane) gave two public comments. On the fire training tower, he argued the lower-than-estimated bid contradicted previous statements that city projects must be done immediately to avoid higher future costs. On the branch fee item, he questioned the accuracy of the $15,000 annual revenue estimate, warned against establishing an "if I don't use it, I shouldn't pay" precedent for municipal services (citing city support for the Opera House), and flagged the risk of increased illegal dumping if disposal costs increased.
  • Stan Triplett (835 West Hill Street) asked for clarification on the full cost of the fire training tower project, noting the combination of the previously purchased building package and the construction bid, and confirmed with staff that materials testing would occur throughout the duration of construction.

Discussion Items

  • Mayor's Communication Update: Mayor Senden outlined a new process for public engagement, allowing citizens to submit questions by noon on the meeting day via email to the executive assistant or mayor. The stated goal is to ensure transparency on financial matters and allow department heads to prepare public responses, addressing concerns about the accessibility of information.
  • Added & Adjusted Wages (Item 9): The council approved wage additions and adjustments for a new Community Service Officer position and a Wastewater Treatment Operator II who obtained Class II certification, both as budgeted for 2026. (Motion passed 6-0).
  • City Agreement with D.C. Booth Society (Item 10): The council approved a new 10-year agreement with the D.C. Booth Society governing the use of the Volunteer Village at the campground and other cooperative activities. The agreement includes an auto-renewal provision. (Motion passed unanimously).
  • Infrastructure Dedication & Plat Approvals (Items 11A, 11B): The council approved the dedication of storm sewer improvements at 1705 North Avenue to the city and a preliminary plat for Block 2 of Elkhorn Ridge Golf Estates, which will allow for future development including potential multifamily construction.
  • Fire Training Tower Project (Items 11C, 11D): The council awarded the construction bid for the fire training tower to American Contracting & Consulting LLC at a total cost of $427,600, significantly below the engineer's estimate of $642,000. Staff attributed the low pricing to a highly competitive bidding climate and provided positive reference checks. A separate contract for construction materials testing was awarded to American Engineering Testing for $9,665. (Both motions passed 6-0).
  • Special Exception for Peaceful Pines (Item 11E): Council approved a special exception to the subdivision ordinance, allowing the developer of a 94-unit multifamily complex to construct public improvements concurrently with building structures. The improvements are backed by a 120% performance bond, and certificates of occupancy will not be issued until infrastructure is completed and accepted by the city. (Motion passed unanimously).
  • Administrative Fee Transfers (Item 12A): The council authorized quarterly administrative fee transfers for personnel and IT costs across enterprise funds. Finance Officer DeNeui noted a waiver of fees from the Downtown Parking Fund for the first two quarters of 2026 while the parking enforcement position was vacant. (Motion passed 6-0).
  • Branch Fees at Restricted Use Site (Item 13E): Public Works Director McMahon proposed eliminating fees for branches at the Restricted Use Site, estimating a $15,000 annual revenue loss. Finance Officer DeNeui strongly recommended against the elimination, citing state standards requiring enterprise funds to be self-sufficient. Councilmember Jacobs moved to deny the fee change, seconded by Councilmember Hafner. The motion to deny the fee change to $0 passed 5-1, keeping the existing fees in place. Councilmember Rath expressed support for a separate cost analysis of the rubble site during the 2027 budget process.

Key Outcomes

  • Consent Calendar: Approved unanimously.
  • Added & Adjusted Wages (Item 9): Approved (6-0).
  • D.C. Booth Society Agreement (Item 10): Approved unanimously.
  • Fire Training Tower Construction (Item 11C): Awarded to American Contracting & Consulting LLC ($427,600). Approved (6-0).
  • Fire Training Tower Testing (Item 11D): Awarded to American Engineering Testing ($9,665). Approved (6-0).
  • Special Exception Peaceful Pines (Item 11E): Approved unanimously.
  • Administrative Fee Transfers (Item 12A): Approved (6-0).
  • Joy of Broadway Wine License (Item 12B): Approved unanimously.
  • Public Works Easements & Letters (Items 13A-13D): All approved unanimously.
  • Branch Fee Elimination (Item 13E): Denied (5-1). Existing fees for branches at the Restricted Use Site remain in effect. A separate cost analysis for the rubble site will be pursued during the 2027 budget process.
  • Bill List (Item 14): Approved (6-0) for $770,240.12.

Meeting Transcript

Okay. Um we have an agenda to approve. I don't have any changes to the agenda. Is there a motion to approve? Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor. Aye. Opposed. Motion carries. And then just to note from council, any conflicts of interest with tonight's agenda. But there might be need to be acknowledged. I see none. With that, we're going to have uh we have public comment. And I did uh introduce some items uh regarding public comment in our study session. Um that we're gonna make some changes for public comment and uh not only public comment but how we address items on the agenda. So I guess go ahead and touch on a few of those items that I brought factually. Uh there was obviously a lighter attendance at that meeting. So I just want to make sure that uh people will get some clarity on this as we as we move forward. Uh our uh in our study session, which is held on Wednesday nights before council, we post an agenda by 12 o'clock on Tuesday. Study sessions are at 4 15. The council agenda is part of that. It's reviewed in that meeting, the council agenda for uh tonight was reviewed then. So that's about six days, a little over six days in advance of that. And then on Friday, the final council agenda is posted by 12. So there's three full days uh in a little bit of time in an afternoon to review that agenda. So um, with the agenda out early, most the public's questions can be addressed with a call to any member of council, the mayor or one of the department heads. There's been some um strong interest by citizens that the city is not as transparent as we could be, especially on items regarding spending taxpayer money. So I would like to lay this groundwork for a few months to see if we can resolve those concerns as follows. If a citizen has a strong opinion or wants a question asked in public by their council person, mayor for full disclosure, that would be an option if that person doesn't want to speak in public. If a person would rather ask the question themselves at city council, they can send an email to our executive assistant or the mayor. Um, and we we haven't set any time frame on that, but I'm looking at we would probably would want to do that by say 12 or one o'clock. So either a department head or uh uh public official would be ready to address that item. Um let's see, this was asked. I I know that Sierra had asked some questions for an article, and I I don't know if she's got that published yet, but there were good questions. She one of her questions was citizens ask questions in open session to give their neighbors a chance to hear some the same answers. Does this method help serve that purpose? And I responded yes. We want to make sure the questions of financial impact definitely get out into the public, even if the person asking the question does not want to stand up at the podium.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com