Rapid City SD – The Rapid City Council on Monday upheld a Legal & Finance Committee recommendation to reduce a contested tree-trimming assessment at 220 East Watertown Street to $600. The property owner, Don Hamm, who rents out the house, had argued that the city’s abatement contractor billed for more time than its crew spent on site.
The item appeared on the council agenda as Item 26 under contested Legal & Finance items. It reached the council from the committee’s Oct. 14 meeting (LF101426-10), where Hamm presented his case.
Council President Stephen Tamang made the motion to uphold the committee’s recommendation, and Council member Greg Strommen, who chairs Legal & Finance, seconded it. It passed 8–2, with Council members John Roberts and Lindsey Seachris voting no.
How It Got Here
On May 6, Code Enforcement mailed Hamm two notices. One covered junk vehicles and debris, which he cleared. The other ordered branches over the street and sidewalk along Milwaukee Street trimmed by May 20. The city says that notice was ignored, so it sent a contractor. North Forty Landscaping billed the city $840 on July 21 to cut, trim and haul the branches, and the city billed Hamm $890.
According to a memo from Code Enforcement Division Manager John Olson, Hamm said he never received the tree notice and that the tree isn’t his responsibility.
He also said photos showed about an hour of trimming, and he objected to paying for travel, setup, equipment and disposal. Olson offered to reduce the bill to $600, with the city absorbing $290. Hamm refused and took it to committee.
The paperwork also lists the appeal window three different ways: 5 days on the tree notice, 10 days on the junk-vehicle notice mailed the same day, and 7 days in Olson’s memo, citing city ordinance.
The Numbers
Finance Director Daniel Ainslie told the council that, with a $100 late fee, the bill had grown to $990. Settling at $600 writes off $390 in total.
Why Staff Cut The Bill
Community Development Director Vicki Fisher told the council staff had tried to settle it before it reached them:
“When we looked at the work that was done and the overall bill for the amount, we took it upon ourselves to make a reduction of $290 in an effort to appease the property owner and not have it be brought before the city council, which whereby we are setting a precedent for others in the community to follow. He still wanted to have an audience at committee…”
Fisher said Hamm’s photo timestamps showed how little time the crew spent at the property, and estimated the work was worth about $600.
She also explained what the city requires contractors to document on abatement invoices:
“When we request invoices from these contractors, they must identify the number of staff that it takes to do the job, the amount of time it takes, any dumping fees at the landfill, any special equipment that they have that they’re using. When you start looking at all of that put together, that’s how it came up to $890.”
The contractor’s invoice in the committee packet, dated July 21, totals $840. The city’s bill to Hamm was $890. Fisher also acknowledged that “this is one of those areas that that bill seems to be high.”
Who Covers The Difference
Seachris asked whether the city would have to absorb the difference out of its abatement budget. Fisher said it would:
“You are correct that when we reduce these rates, it’s basically the city absorbing this out of our abatement budget, and it does not get put back in the general fund.”
Fisher also defended the cost of tree work, drawing on her own experience:
“I know that tree trimming is a very dangerous thing… we had a windstorm here this last fall or last winter. I had a tree branch come out in my backyard, hired a tree company to come in and help deal with it. They were in my backyard for 20 minutes, and my bill was $800.”
Seachris thanked her for the clarification and added that, as a walker, she dislikes getting clipped by low branches over sidewalks.
The Opposition
Roberts questioned staff about why a reduction was recommended at all, saying the city “very seldomly has done this in the past” and that changing assessments sets a precedent that worries him. He drew on his own history:
“I’ve paid enough of these fines over the years that I know that, you know, we’re very thorough about tracking them now, or at least we try to be, and it’s just difficult for me.”
Roberts, who represents Ward 4, where the property sits, said he might support relief for a homeowner but not for a rental:
“First of all, it’s in my ward, the home. So, you know, of course I would want to, if it was a homeowner, probably give them a break. But it is a rental property, for one thing. God, I’m just having such a hard time with this because this is not something that we normally do…”
He also suggested the problem might be the contractor, recalling a bill of his own:
“When we’re saying that they approximately did this much work, then maybe we need a new contractor. Because I remember having that conversation many years ago when I got a $380 bill for a mowing on a postage stamp yard on Haines Avenue, and I thought it was too expensive. But nobody from staff came in and said, ‘Well, we think that might have been a little too expensive.’”
Roberts called the reduction a “really bad precedent” and said he would vote no.
The Support
Strommen backed his committee’s decision:
“At the Legal and Finance committee meeting, we did hear a very thorough explanation from the property owner. We had a thorough debate about it, and I think that the right decision was made at Legal and Finance. I’m going to be in full support of this motion.”
What’s Next
Hamm now owes $600. Under the city’s abatement process, assessments not paid within 30 days go to Pennington County as a lien with statutory interest.
The larger question raised from the dais went unanswered Monday.
Roberts, while voting no, suggested “maybe we need a new contractor.” Staff reduced this bill on its own judgment, and no one on the council pointed to a written standard for when the city cuts an abatement charge. These questions remain unanswered:
- What are the rates? Fisher described what contractors must itemize: crew size, time, landfill fees and equipment. She didn’t say what the city pays per hour or per piece of equipment, or what accounts for the $50 between North Forty’s $840 invoice and the $890 bill.
- Is there a policy for reductions? Can staff lower an abatement bill, under what conditions, and who approves it?
- How often does it happen? Roberts said the city “very seldomly” reduces these bills. How many reductions has the city made in recent years, and for how much?
Sourcing
Rapid City Council meeting, Oct. 19, 2026 (Item 26, broadcast 44:46–52:08); Legal & Finance Committee agenda packet, Oct. 14, 2026 (LF101426-10), including the Code Enforcement memo, notices and contractor invoice for 220 E. Watertown St.
Leave a Reply