Rapid City SD – Fifteen items fit on one agenda page for Tuesday’s Rapid City Public Works Committee meeting. One of them didn’t have a working link: the agenda’s link for the only contested action item went to the city’s “We’re sorry: we can’t find that page” screen. The item’s page and attachments do exist. They just weren’t connected to the agenda.
The committee meets at 12:30 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 27, in Council Chambers at the City Hall Administration Center, 300 Sixth St. The meeting streams live on the city’s YouTube channel. Everything approved Tuesday goes to the full City Council on Monday, Nov. 2.
This preview reflects the documents posted on the city’s website as of Sunday evening, Oct. 25. Missing or misfiled documents may be corrected or added before Tuesday’s meeting.
On Consent
Twelve items are on the consent calendar, which passes in a single vote unless a committee member or a member of the public asks to pull an item for separate discussion. Public comment on consent items is taken before that vote.
Approve minutes for Oct. 13, 2026
PW102726-01: South Street storm sewer change order, +$36,278.74
Change Order 1 to Halme, Inc. | South Street Reconstruction, Block 17 alley to West Boulevard | Project 2787 / CIP 51358
During construction, crews hit a storm drain about 9 feet deep that has to be tied into the city’s system. The fix is roughly 440 linear feet of 12-inch storm sewer pipe in the public right-of-way, plus exploratory digging to find the grade at the downstream connection. The whole increase comes out of the CIP Drainage line.
- Contract: $865,813.70 → $902,092.44
- Contract time: No change
- Staff contact: Jordan Adkins, P.E.
PW102726-02: Elmhurst Drive change order, +$14,904.98
Change Order 1 to Woelber Excavating | Elmhurst Drive Reconstruction, Canyon Lake Drive to Minnekahta Drive | Project 2840 / CIP 51098.1
The increase pays for epoxy-coated #4 rebar the engineer ordered for the concrete paving. The change order also fixes a one-cent error: the original funding breakdown added up to a penny more than the bid, so the CIP Streets line was trimmed to match. That penny also shows up in the paperwork. The summary sheet lists a net increase of $14,904.99, while the agenda, the change-order history and the staff recommendation all say $14,904.98.
- Contract: $1,950,282.31 → $1,965,187.30
- Contract time: No change
PW102726-03: Hoefer Court and Maywood Drive paving, +$9,599
Change Order 2F to Tru-Form Construction | Pavement Rehabilitation, Hoefer Ct. and Maywood Dr. | Project 2867.9 / CIP 50549.26J
The “F” means final. As of this preview, the public can’t see what this change order covers. The only document attached to Item 3 on the city’s website is the Elmhurst Drive change order from Item 2, an identical file under a different name. The Tru-Form change order itself hasn’t been posted.
Open question: What does the $9,599 pay for, and will the correct document be posted before the vote?
PW102726-04: Landfill fencing comes in under budget, −$39,248
Change Order 2F to Going For Broke, LLC | Emergency Debris Fencing Repair, Cells 12, 13 and 18 | Project 2882.3 / CIP 51459
This is the final change order on the emergency landfill fence repair, and it lowers the cost. The contract allowed for 20 additional replacement poles, but only three went in, to reinforce the Cell 18 fence near the roadway entrance. “No additional damaged poles were identified,” the change order says. Four fewer mid-span poles were installed than planned.
One addition: the Solid Waste Division bought six leftover 150-foot netting rolls from the contractor, $900 each, “for future repairs and modifications to portable litter screens.”
- Contract: $447,444.40 original; $471,536 after Change Order 1; $432,288 final
- Net change across both change orders: −$15,156.40
- Funding: Solid Waste enterprise fund
PW102726-05: Drainage plan for 5,300 acres in northeast Rapid City, $342,810
Professional services agreement with Avid4 Engineering | Ennen-Morris-Radar Hill Drainage Basin Design Plan | Project 2897 / CIP 51464
Avid4 would write a drainage basin design plan covering about 5,300 acres between Reservoir Road and close to Airport Road. According to the city’s authorization form, the point is to stop the piecemeal approach: “Currently, developers construct drainage infrastructure based on plans for individual development areas, often without considering upstream and downstream development.” The plan is meant to map major drainage corridors to preserve before development reaches them.
- Cost split: Equally between the City and Pennington County
- Contract dates: Nov. 4, 2026, to Oct. 1, 2027
- Terms: Hourly, with a not-to-exceed maximum
PW102726-06: Water main easement on East Disk Drive, $48,000
Acquisition offer and agreement with ROCKSD5, LLC | East Disk Drive Water Extension | Project IN26-02
The city would buy a permanent water main easement across a portion of Tract F, Marshall Heights Subdivision No. 2, at 751 E. Disk Drive. It’s a long, narrow strip of 26,385.9 square feet running about 750 feet along the east side of the tract, next to the East Mall Business Center lots.
The math: 26,385.9 sq. ft. × $1.81 = $47,758.48, rounded to $48,000.
The paperwork:
- The offer states the property “has NOT BEEN APPRAISED,” and the owner waived any right to an appraisal. That language is standard on the city’s form, so the $1.81 rate came from the city.
- The City Attorney’s Office drafted the easement Oct. 9 and the survey exhibit is stamped Oct. 13. The offer was delivered and accepted the same day, Oct. 14.
- The easement describes ROCKSD5 as a South Dakota LLC, but its mailing address is in Grand Forks, N.D. The printed-name line for the person signing for the company is blank.
Who ROCKSD5 is: According to South Dakota Secretary of State records, ROCKSD5 LLC was formed Aug. 1, 2025. Its South Dakota address is the address of its commercial registered agent in Watertown. The company’s original manager was MAK Capital LLC of Grand Forks. Its 2026 annual report, filed Oct. 7 with a late fee, one week before the easement offer was accepted, lists Marc Kuhn of Grand Forks as manager, at the same mailing address shown on the city’s offer. The owner’s initials on the city’s offer read “MAK.” The filings list no beneficial owners, which the state does not require.
Open question: What is the East Disk Drive water extension being built to serve?
PW102726-07: Concrete mixer trailer, $160,065.54
Purchase of one Cemen Tech M15 tandem-axle concrete mixer trailer | Sourcewell contract 060122-CMT | Streets Division
The trailer produces up to 15 cubic yards of concrete per hour and would be used for Streets Division concrete repairs. It’s a $129,379 base unit plus $30,622 in options, a 4% Sourcewell discount, and an estimated $4,500 for freight. Freight is billed at actual cost, so the final number can change.
Note: The purchase order is dated Sept. 16, and its terms say quoted prices are “guaranteed for thirty (30) days from the Quote Date.” That window closed Oct. 16, eleven days before the committee vote.
PW102726-08: Two Volvo wheel loaders, $600,702
Purchase of two Volvo L110H wheel loaders from Transource Truck & Equipment | Sourcewell contract 011723-VCE | Solid Waste Division
The city posted more supporting documents for this item than for anything else on the agenda. Here is what they show.
“New” loaders with hours on them. The city’s purchasing request calls them “two (2) new prior model year wheel loaders.” The one Transource sales agreement reviewed for this preview lists a 2024 Volvo L110H with 208 machine hours, priced at $295,000 plus a $2,851 service manual, for $297,851. The extended warranty runs to Sept. 17, 2029, or 4,000 hours.
Delivery before approval. That sales agreement is dated Oct. 2 and says delivery to the landfill is “projected October 13/14.” That’s about two weeks before the committee is asked to authorize the purchase. The city’s signature line is blank.
A dollar off. The purchasing request lists the two loaders at $302,850 and $297,851. Those add up to $600,701. The request, the appropriation and the agenda all say $600,702.
Open questions: Are the loaders already at the landfill? And what does “new” mean on a machine with 208 hours?
PW102726-09: Old Folsom Road sidewalk waiver (staff: APPROVE)
Advanced Design Engineering & Surveying, for 42 Rapid City, LP | 1849 Old Folsom Road | Municipal Code 12.08.060.C
The owner wants to skip the required sidewalk along Old Folsom Road, which the request letter, signed by Jeremy Schnell, describes as “a rural street section.” It has no curb, gutter or storm inlets, and it drains to ditches. The property’s frontage on Capacitor Street would still get a 5-foot concrete sidewalk.
Staff recommends approval.
PW102726-10: Bocce Complex Phase 3, +$13,855 and six more months
Change Order 1 to RCS Construction | Bocce Complex, Phase 3 | Project PR25-6205
The increase covers three additions:
- $5,341: Revised water and sewer connections. The plans had both lines capped and rerouted to the new restroom building, but the old building still has storage and a utility sink that Parks uses regularly.
- $7,372.05: Bollards. The new restroom sits less than 5 feet from the parking lot curb.
- $1,141.95: Rigid insulation under the precast restroom for frost protection, which city Building Services required. It wasn’t in the manufacturer’s or consultant’s specifications.
The bigger change is time. The contract adds 26 weeks, pushing completion to April 30, 2027. RCS wrote that the shelter manufacturer “has taken a long time to produce stamped drawings,” and the shelter’s delivery date is still unknown.
- Contract: $633,294.20 → $647,149.20
- Funding: Vision Fund
26CA002: A planned road comes off the map
Resolution 2026-080 | Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Major Street Plan | Between Interstate 90 and Deadwood Avenue North, west and south of Calamity Road
The agenda describes this item only as “realigning a proposed collector street,” with no location. Here’s what it is.
The Major Street Plan is the city’s long-range map of where future major roads go. This amendment removes the planned north-south collector street south of Calamity Road and connects what’s left to Calamity Road’s western end. In staff’s words, the street’s location “is not conducive to maximizing the area available for development.”
The amendment is tied to 26PL087, the Deadwood Storage Subdivision. That plat splits about 29.7 acres at 4321 Deadwood Ave. N. into three light industrial lots for Heavy Constructors Inc. One of the plat’s stipulations requires Heavy Constructors to either build the collector or get this amendment approved. The lots would use private wells and septic, and staff writes that “there are no plans to extend City utilities to the subject property.” The Planning Commission approved the amendment Oct. 22.
What’s changed since our Oct. 22 preview
- Who’s asking. In September, FMG Engineering applied for the amendment on behalf of Heavy Constructors. The Oct. 22 staff report now lists the applicant as “City of Rapid City.” FMG’s Oct. 13 revision letter says it is filed “on behalf of the property owners” and is copied to both Heavy Constructors Inc. and Buren Properties.
- Why Buren matters. The amendment’s legal description also covers neighboring land owned by Buren Properties, where the same collector runs through the planned second phase of its Deadwood Avenue Commercial Subdivision. In June, the city denied Buren’s request to skip dedicating land for and building that collector. Buren appealed, then withdrew the appeal in July. When the Planning Commission reviewed Buren’s plat July 23, staff wrote that the collector would have to be built at Phase 2 “or a Comprehensive Plan Amendment must be approved.” This is that amendment.
- Sidewalks may be next. FMG’s plat report says the developer expects to ask the City Council for variances from sidewalk requirements.
Prior coverage:
Rapid City Zoning/Planning Oct 22 – Block 8 Returns, Deadwood Avenue Street Plan Up for Change
The Exception That Has An Exception: The Public Works Agenda Anomaly
Buren Properties Appeal Hits a Wall: Public Works Committee Sends It Back For Two More Weeks
Open question: When did a developer’s application become a city-initiated amendment, and why?
Non-Consent Items (13–15)
PW102726-11: Pioneer Drive sidewalk waiver (staff: DENY)
Advanced Design Engineering & Surveying, for Evergreen Real Estate, LLC | Pioneer No. 3 Subdivision | Municipal Code 16.16.050
This is the item whose agenda link was broken. It’s the only action item off the consent calendar, and it’s the second sidewalk waiver on this agenda from the same engineering firm.
Evergreen Real Estate is splitting a property on Pioneer Drive into two lots and wants to skip the 4-foot sidewalk the city’s subdivision code requires. The land is in Pennington County but inside the city’s three-mile platting jurisdiction, which is why it comes to Rapid City. The plat is 26PL083.
The applicant’s case, in full: Pioneer Drive has no sidewalks, it’s a local street on the Major Street Plan, and “similar variances have been granted since there are no sidewalks in this area.”
The county’s response. Pennington County Deputy Planning Director Jason Theunissen wrote Oct. 19 that county staff “does not support waiving the sidewalk requirement in this area.” He cited three reasons:
- The property is zoned Suburban Residential-1, which requires sidewalks.
- There are “no demonstrated topographical constraints or other physical hardships.”
- The neighborhood to the west has sidewalk stubs on both sides of Jim Street pointing toward this subdivision. Requiring sidewalks now, he wrote, would “help establish a continuous pedestrian network as the area develops.”
City staff (Emily Fisher, Development Review) recommends denial.
Two details:
- The code citation doesn’t match. The applicant’s letter cites Municipal Code 12.08.060.C, the same street-code section used in the Old Folsom request (Item 9). The city’s agenda and staff summary cite 16.16.050, the subdivision requirement.
- We’ve seen this before. In August, the same firm asked to waive sidewalks for Murphy Ranch Estates Phase 10D. That land was also in the county, the county also opposed, and staff also recommended denial. That request was continued at the applicant’s request and later withdrawn.
- Two Sidewalk Waivers, One Agenda: Committee Grills Corporate Request, Punts the Other to September
Presentation: Annual Review of Open Meeting Laws (LF102826-02)
Presented by City Attorney Carla Cushman | Required annually under SDCL 1-25-13
This year’s guide is new. The 2026 edition of the Attorney General’s open meetings guide (“Effective July 1, 2026”) adds a section the 2025 edition didn’t have:
SDCL 1-25-1.7, Agenda details are required. A proposed agenda “must list all items to be considered by a public body during any official meeting. The proposed agenda items must be described in sufficient detail to reasonably inform the public of any official business or public policy intended to be considered at the meeting. A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.”
The 2026 guide also spells out executive session procedure: the motion must be made and seconded and must cite the specific subdivision of law it relies on, any vote that isn’t unanimous must be taken by roll call, and both the motion and the vote must be recorded in the minutes.
This presentation is on the same agenda as an item described only as “realigning a proposed collector street” (26CA002), an action item whose agenda link went to an error page (PW102726-11), and a change order whose only attachment is another item’s document (PW102726-03).
Presentation: Sidewalk Variance Review
Presented by City Engineer Roger Hall
No materials were posted. It comes immediately after the committee votes on Pioneer Drive, at a meeting with two sidewalk waivers on the agenda and a third expected from the Deadwood Storage Subdivision. The waivers have split at Public Works this year:
- Admiral Beverage (Aug. 11): The waiver was ultimately approved at Council.
- Murphy Ranch: Withdrawn after a recommended denial.
- Bickett Garden Lane (Sept. 15): Staff recommended approval.
Open question: Does the review set a standard, or does “similar variances have been granted” keep working as an argument?
What We Still Don’t Know
- Why the 26CA002 staff report lists the City of Rapid City as applicant when the engineer’s letter says it represents the property owners.
- Whether the Volvo loaders were delivered before the committee was asked to approve buying them.
- What the East Disk Drive water extension will serve, and what a Grand Forks-managed LLC formed in 2025 plans for 751 E. Disk Drive.
- Whether the Cemen Tech price still holds now that its 30-day guarantee has passed.
- What the Tru-Form change order (Item 3) covers. Its posted attachment is the Elmhurst Drive document.
- What Roger Hall’s sidewalk variance review recommends.
Sources: City of Rapid City Public Works Committee agenda for Oct. 27, 2026, and the posted agenda item summaries and attachments for PW102726-01 through -11, 26CA002 (staff report dated Oct. 22, 2026, and attachments, including FMG Engineering’s Oct. 13, 2026 revision letter) and LF102826-02 (South Dakota Attorney General’s open meetings guide, 2026 and 2025 editions). ROCKSD5 LLC details are from South Dakota Secretary of State filings: Articles of Organization and Certificate of Organization (Aug. 1, 2025) and the 2026 Annual Report (filed Oct. 7, 2026). Prior Sentinel reporting on 26PL087, 26CA002 and Buren Properties was drawn from FMG Engineering’s plat report and city staff reports. The only attachment posted for PW102726-03 is a duplicate of the PW102726-02 Elmhurst Drive change order.
Leave a Reply