County Commissioner & Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

This conference will now be recorded. Call the meeting in order. Would everyone please join me in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Welcome everyone this morning. First order of business will be to approve the agenda. Bruce, are there any changes? Two things to note is Mr. Chairman. Have not yet received the state health agreement. So that will be for another day. Please cross that off. And then at 8:15, if you would please add an executive session pursuant to 1-25-2 subsection 1 regarding personnel. Sheriff will have a quick matter for your consideration. Okay. Move to approve the agenda as amended. Second.

Okay. Motion by Jenny, second by to approve the amended agenda. All those in favor of the motion say I. Opposed. Motion carried. Do we have any conflicts? Seeing none, we need approval of the minutes from November 12th. Move approval. Second. Okay. Motion by sleep, seconded by Jennings for approval. All those in favor of the motion will say I. Opposed. Motion carried. Bills. I have my questions answered. Move to approve the bills as presented. Second.

Okay. Motion by Jenny, second by Flanigan for approval of the bills from November 10th. All those in favor of the motion will say I. Opposed? Motion carries. Personnel Brenda, please.

Yes, I have um one or four from the sheriff's office and three and one from information systems and technology. Um the first one is Kelly Clark. a dual role employee in the sheriff's office. going to be a correction officer one grade one part-time fill in at a base pay of 2408 effective 1125 and then the same um that will be dispatch um one grade one base pay at 248 2408 parttime also effective 1125 Jesse Clark is a new hire dispatcher grade one base pay 2408 full-time permanent employee also 1125 525 and then a cell phone statement for Stone Terome starting on 1028 2025 and that'll be at $14 a month. And then um under information system technology, Shaunie Laferty will be um information systems and technology specialist grade one base pay 3059 full-time permanent employee effective on December 10th of 25. That's all I have for her first.

Um, she lives in Eagle View at this time, but I'm looking to relocate to Lawrence County. How about the other employment for two? Yeah. So, Kelly Clark will be do filling in for both dispatch and the and the um jail. So when they need somebody to fill in a ship then she can do them both the dispatch or the or the jail.

Okay. What's your pleasure to approve the new hires self as presented? Okay. Motion by Jennings, seconded by Slate for approval. All those in favor of the motion will say I. I. Opposed. Motion carried. Do we have any travel request? I have none. Okay. Request for state aid for the veteran service officer salary.

Yeah, we received um the participation for the veteran service officer. This agreement needs to be signed um if you choose to. Um it'll take effect on January 1st of 26 and go through December 31st of 26. and we'll continue each year thereafter and unless we decide to terminate or make changes at that time. So I just need a motion to authorize a chairman to sign if you wish.

I'll second. Okay. Motion by Flattington, seconded by Jennings. Any further discussion? I might add that that this is another uh state required expense for us with very little reimbursement. That's a position. Okay. All those in favor of the motion will say I opposed. Motion carried. Any general business? Brenda. That's all I have. Okay. Agreement. Extension.

Oh, yes. Sorry. So this is the um annual um memorandum of understanding between SDSU and Lawrence County for the 4 educator um to um we pay $11,525 a year for the um for uh says for the 4 educators.5 full-time employee appointment in Lawrence County. share that with you county. Yes, it's the same amount as last year. Correct. Just for the insurance. Yeah, kind of. Yeah. Y Okay. Need a motion for the chairman sign.

Please. So, okay. Motion by seconded by Jennings. All those in favor of the motion will say I. Opposed. Motion carries. All right. back to sleep. Uh Dean,

well, uh have you come up and uh you requested a executive session? So executive session, I'm sorry. I'm going shut the recorder for a little Back to

Microphone's on. Camera's bad. Oops. We're back. Open the corral door. Okay, we have come out of executive session without any action. Sheriff, um, what else do you have for us today,

Mr. Chairman, I'm uh happy to report that things are doing very well, albeit not normal issues that that we have to contend with. Uh we we say it quite oftenly.

I think it's important to continue to say it with frequency, but our business model for the new facility was such that we wanted to earn a million22,000 a year. We had a late start, but as of today, we have earned revenue approximately 9 78,27986 which leaves us uh $43,72014 cents approximately in order to hit our goal to the balance of the year and I will I will say with a fair amount of confidence I don't see a problem hitting that mark with nearly five that's not a full 12 months that's right sounds great commissioner James

now that the government is opened back up I assume that negotiations for a rates have been been picked back up. Uh they sent out they being the federal government sent out a a letter uh in synopsis basically saying that as everybody knows there's a shutdown. We're back in on the job and working towards a resolution for it. So all right. Anyone have any questions for the chair? All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. We can't do our bid opening yet. Brenda Oz is here. We can do the All right, let's do so we don't have to break John up. Oz, you want to go now?

Is it fair? Y chairman.

Yes, please. So uh Oz Enter here on behalf of De Mountain Sanitary District present to you two proposed petitions for annexation of territory into the district. SDCL 34A-5-43 says that no such resolution or resolutions by the district may adopted unless the resolution has been approved by the board of county commissioners. And so here we are today. You're familiar with this. You've seen it before. There is a map in your packet that shows the two described areas and the legal descriptions. Uh we've had no input as far as I know. no objection or anything of the sort. Does not require um uh a hearing on on your part, but approval. I would then defer to Oz for any comments that he has. Anything to add, sir?

No, it's pretty obvious. We're annexing two two properties uh P resources with no additional water rights primarily for development e easier development of lots and fire mitigation. Okay. Thank you. Okay, commissioners have any questions or discussion or action? Make a motion to approve the request for NH property present to SECL 34A 543. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Further discussion. Commissioner Jenny, do you have a particular use in mind for these lots or is this

is there a particular use in mind for these lots now? Are you putting a water tank or um eventually one of them may have an additional water tank on it for the for the higher elevations. Uh KD Resources has found that those higher elevation lots are either going to require booster pumps or another water storage tank. So that's what we continue to work through with Mr. Key. Okay. Further discussion? See none, all those in favor of the motion will say I opposed. Motion carried. Thank you. We're still ahead.

I don't want to mess John's agenda up here. So, we'll just take a quick break until 8:25, which we have the bid opening at that time. Okay.

All right. I believe Mr. Bay, your your turn, sir. Ready. You have the floor. Good morning. Good morning. We have quite a lot to talk about here today. All good though, right? It is all good, but we'll see. It may change as we Okay. Uh to start with, I do have a an approach permit, a request for an approach. This is Tom Benston.

Benson.

Benson. Yeah, he's requesting permission to construct a a private approach on the southeast side of the uh Galina Road and this is to access the west side of his property across the creek. It's he was wanting to do a low water crossing um which is outside of our rideway. It does cross the Bear Creek. is in a flood plane and he has obtained uh the flood development permit from the planning and zoning. He also has an engineers uh survey of the area. Helen Helen. It is located between two existing approaches and uh I know in the pictures that I sent you the site distance is it does meet the requirement and it is it is fairly tight in that area but uh it is the only access you know his property only 25 ft of his property touch the road. So, I mean, there's just not a lot of options for this gentleman to have access to this portion of his property. With that being said, I mean, I I with the other existing approaches in that area and the site distance meeting requirement, I don't have an issue with this this uh approach. Um, I don't think that we should deny him access to this property. So, I'm going to recommend that we allow it. I do would like your guys's input on it. Commissioner state,

what about having one access and drive on the private land to the next using the neighbors property? The the the property to the north uh doesn't would not access his property because of where the creek is. uh the property to this to the southwest. Uh I guess that could be a possibility, but I don't think he wants to use his neighbors right away. So it's 100 ft away, so I don't know. Okay. Further questions, discussions, or action.

What was the speed limit on that road? Uh it's like 30 miles an hour, I believe. Commissioner Move we approve the uh request. Okay, I'll second it. Is uh any further discussion? Okay, all those in favor of the motion we'll say I opposed. Motion carried approved, sir.

He's not here. No, he's Oh, that's different guy. Okay. Um, second on my list here is uh I'm asking for uh to set a bid date for our paving project for the 2026 paving of the Nemo Road. I'd like to have been opening at 8:30 a.m. on December the 23rd in this room. This will be for the next 3.6 miles of the new road. And that where we left off last year, which is just uh kind of near the old ridge road. This will take us to the 8. I'd like to set the date for December 23rd 8:38 recommendations.

Okay, we have a motion to second. Further discussion.

Does that finish up the road or is there more phases to do? There will be one more phase after this for the paving and then we'll have that that uh bank stabilization portion that we left out this year. There's roughly a tenth of a mile there that we we omitted and did not include it because by itself it's going to be probably near the same dollar value as each one of these phases because of the the amount of work needs to do. So, we're going to have to have a a sixth phase on this project and hopefully that's the last. We do have one more year of mainline paving and then we'll have to take on this bank statement project.

Okay. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion will say I opposed. Motion carried. And this brings us to our lease agreement with the state DOT for the property at 3510 Cactus Place. Um we've kind of gone back and worked with the state DOT with this lease. Um I think we're to a point I would refer to our legal counsel. I know Bruce has brought up a couple items that they've corrected. Um and I I guess I think we're to a point where we're ready to have this signed.

Sure. Go ahead. John will correct me if I'm wrong. I think the the purpose of it is is that the DOT has doesn't have much operations left there on site. They have their salt shed, right? Basically, and then they there's a building there and inside that building is where the the water is that supplies our weed shop and the highway shop. Is that fair? That is correct. And I think last year the power there was no heat in that building the heat and it caused a problem. So this would allow us to maintain the heat in there to avoid that problem

and utilize the building. We're going to heat it. We just as well keep some of our equipment in it as well. We have made an agreement state to allow them to use our fuel system also. Their fuel system is shuttered. They will use our fuel system and we will we will request reimbursement. So I think we have three of their operators that are set up to use our fuel. They they they still have a loader there that they will use to load their trucks and they have a salt shed still there. So they're the equipment that comes out of Sturgeis they can't go all the way to Wyoming and back. So they're going to still use this location for and I think in this lease agreement it is spelled out what portion they use. So anyway, I guess we feel it is ready for a signature. Okay,

questions or discussion? Motion allow the chairman to sign. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Further discussion. So, did I understand it right that the weed portion is in the state building?

No, the weed portion they're they have their own building. They have two buildings, but they use the same water system. We all use the same water and sewer system out there. But the controls for the water system are in the state building. when they turned the heat off last year and it froze it took out our well, you know, we absorbed the cost to fix the well. I think it was in that $6,000 range roughly we paid to have the the well replaced the well pump. So that's what started this whole thing is, you know, we're trying to make sure that we at least keep that from happening. But if we're going to pay to heat that building, I'd assume keep some of our equipment in it. We have absolutely,

you know, we don't have enough room in our shop for all of our equipment there. We have stuff that still sits outside. So, this will get all of our plow trucks and our grers inside so we don't leave nothing outside. Sounds good. Have you done anything about the land? No, that's another topic. Okay. This maintain maintains the status quo for it's an annual agreement. So, this gets us by this time next year. Okay. Um, all those in favor of the motion will say I opposed. Motion check. We'll get her signed.

Do you have a copy to sign? I I do. It requires Brenda, I think, to notoriize it. You want me to send it to to the gentleman or do you want to do it, John? Uh, you know, if if you would like to, you certainly can. Okay.

I have a note to do so. Thank you. Um, next on this, I tell you, I got I got these agreements that we need to go over for our bridge, but I think I'm going to go a little out of order and I think we have Bros here to to do their bridge inspection report, and it kind of plays into this a little bit. So, I'd like to have Daniel Rose go ahead and give his the annual bridge inspection. This is for our our three U annually inspected bridges. You know, we we're down to only having three on our on our list that get inspected annually. So, gain some ground.

Yep. And if everything goes well, we're this time next year, we'll be down to just two or one. So, we'll see how that goes. Sorry. You want to come forward? Sure. So, the first first bridge is uh 4105040. That's on the I90 service road out towards the line bridge. That one, the deck's in pretty rough shape. Continues to crack and fall. County continues to put asphalt to patch it up. The next two are on the Nemo Road Bridge. Uh 41, 249, 268. That's a pre-stressed box beam. And that that one of them we uh recommended posting it. That's due to the concrete falling off the edge of her. Um, you can see in pictures it's getting into really bad shape. The concrete's falling off. You can see the rear drains. The posting on that's 18 for a single unit and 31st combinations. And the second one uh 41, 250, 268. That one had the one lane closed. We recommended closing both outside lanes. The cones are there. They just kind of get pushed off to the side. But that one, same thing. It's in real bad shape. You know, you can walk down along the edge, you can see the sides of the concrete. It's continues to fall off. So, it's a safety hazard. You know, the bad part is we only can see what's on the outside. We don't know what's going on in the inside. We'll know when water gets in there just continues to rotate out. Yeah. And those two we're doing shovel red plans on which we have agreements coming for that. The plans we did submit

to the state for early review and they're plans now. So yeah in a nutshell that's pretty pretty much the three bridges that were inspected this years. Okay any questions for this gentleman or John? I would note that these when he says that he can't see what's going on. These are box beam bridges. So they're each section and then what are there seven sections on each? They're enclosed. You know, they're they're an actual square box. It's like a square type of of design. So there's no way to understand what's going on inside of that bridge. They just are taking the fact that the outsides are are falling apart that you know we don't know where the the center pieces are. Um, and that'll bring us to the kind of our next subject here, and that would be the the replacement of equipment. Like Daniel has said, we've already got the uh we did the preliminary engineering on this probably five years ago. I'm thinking four or five years ago. It's been quite a while. You guys uh voted to go forward with that. Um earlier this year, we we went ahead and we approved to go forward with the shovel ready portion of the plan. the the design engineering. So, we could submit that. Um, once these bridges are posted, are they're going to score pretty high for the for the big for the big program, which we plan on submitting January 2nd, the the big the grant applications. Uh with that being said, we have gone we've met extensively with the with the land owners on this project and uh we've come to several agreements and I'm going to start with probably the most prevalent agreement and that will be the fact that Blum Lane is a is an existing road. It

is a is a private approach to four properties. It already bypasses both of these bridges. We've made an agreement with these land owners that we use their their road Blum Lane as our our bypass for this project for the course of the year. The estimated time to to do these bridges that at the end we will we'll we will return the road back to its original shape and width with the exception of we will pave their road. We will give them a paved surface at the end of the project. Uh, also portion of the agreement, any millings that we use out in the at the bridge portion of it, we'll use that millings for grading and anything left over, we will let them uh use for their driveways and their approaches. Um, I've spent a lot of time speaking with the state on this as far as the legalities of letting us do this and as long as we have an agreement, this is the local government's position on this. It's a portion of the agreement. Uh it it it is an impetiment of the county to do this. We do have estimates of of the the cost of building a bypass versus utilizing an existing bypass and it is quite a bit. Rose has put together uh an estimate to build bypasses around that bridge and it's it's on the upper end of $800,000 to build a road. So, you know, that's including building a road, maintaining the road, removing the road. Some of these expenses will go over into Blum Lane. We're going to maintain that road. Um I think what we have in here in our agreement is you know we will we will maintain Blum Lane for the duration of the project. We'll return Blum Lane to 18T width and pave it at the conclusion of the project at which time uh maintenance will revert back to the property owners. I think our estimate for the paving

project is roughly 170,000. So, um, we don't have to build a diversion if it's in place. Now, we have made agreements with these people. We've gone back and forth. I didn't tell you some of the agreements, some of the requests they made were kind of out there. You know, they wanted a lot of a lot of financial compensation. And we have managed to get that down to what I have listed in this packet. And we can do these one at a time or we can go through them all at once and make a motion. I'll leave that up to you. Unless one has the desire to single any of them out, I guess I would suggest we do them as a package.

Okay. Um there's five there's five easement documents. Um the one that's kind of separated would be Mr. Mclofflin and his his approach is on the opposite side. He doesn't he doesn't require any additional uh compensation other than what he's requested for the permanent easement and the and the temper easement and that amounts to $1,15. So uh the other people Mr. and Mrs. Rage um they get some temporary easement and some tree removal. So their compensation is $1980. Gordon and Audrey Mack are requesting $1,085 for both temporary and permanent easement. And then the Simon Plum easements, there's two parcels that they're in charge of. Um each one of those, one gets temporary easement and a single tree removal of $342 and the other one has some perpetual easement and some temporaryment in the amount of $762.50. So, I think that roughly comes to $5,280 for the for their financial compensation total. And then uh and then of course the agreement of utilizing their road is the diversion for this project. Would I would certainly like to get your guys's approval of this so we can get signatures on these easement documents and submit them to the state.

Motion to follow the recommendation. Second. Okay. Okay, we have a motion and a motion by Flanigan, seconded by Jennings for follow superintendent recommendation on these. Is there any further discussion? We can't just make that the new road the bridges all together. Yeah, I'm told that at some time when we pass that was the that was the main road. Took a squiggle out. Put two bridges, right? All right. All those in favor of the motion will say I. I opposed. Motion carried. Okay, John.

With that being said, we have contacted the uh and I think I you had copies of the letters that we sent to uh to the utilities. So, we have utility easement and uh rightway easements also need to have those as well. Same project. Same project. Yes, sir. chairman to sign any and all documents regarding the bypass and easements associated with the Nemo Bridge projects. Second. Okay. Motion by Flagan, seconded by Sle. All those in favor of the motion will say I opposed. Motion carry. And could I make sure you got a blue pen?

Yes, it's moved. Okay. Thank you. And that will bring us down to the last two signatures I would need. And these would be for the uh resolutions 202535 and 202536. And that will be for the the uh the chairman's signature for uh authorization to file the grant, the big grant. So move. Okay. Motion by second by SL for approval.

All those in favor of the motion will say I carried. You have anything else to add, Daniel? No. Just that will apply on January second. Scores pretty good. without building the bypass. What is the diversion? It' be a long way. It's a quarter of a mile. Just the diversion. But correct. If those bridges fail, you got to go through benchmark and around another one. Yeah. There you go. Correct. Yeah.

So, they score pretty high last year. I mean, I think 50.4 was the uh scoring number. So, of course, we don't know that. depends on how many people apply for the big grants. So, well, thank you for all your hard work on trying to do this as inexpensive as you can. Sounds like you saved the county some money there. I hope so. And these came to happen sooner or later. Okay. What else you got for us, John?

I think this city of Spearfish is here. They have a plat that is uh this is for some of this new development that is down on the corner of Colorado Boulevard and Maitlin Road. I think they can give us a little more information on that. I I guess I believe this is all commercial property. Is that correct?

That's correct. So, um the property itself is all within city limits already. City owns the property. We've entered into a couple of purchase agreements to sell off some of these lots. The reason that we're here today is because a portion of it on the eastern side abuts Maitland Road and there is an additional 17 feet of rideway dedication there that we're requesting in order for future improvements to be made to Matland Road. I expect at that time we'd be back here before you all with the design of that intersection with Boulevard and discussion around the jurisdiction of that portion of Mland Road. Um, at this point there are no additional accesses requested off of Mland.

John, do you have anything?

I would and I would uh recommend that no additional accesses in this area are allowed off of Mland. I would I think for the average daily traffic count in that area and the condition of the Mland Road in that area, I don't think it's a I don't think it is a candidate for commercial approaches. Now they have uh Aspen Drive is a newly that's going to be a a through road at some point and that is that is a city street and then it is also connects to Colorado Boulevard by what will be Sawmill Avenue. So um I guess at this time I would have to say any accesses to any of these properties should come from either of those. Mhm.

Um, so at which point I don't know why we would need to be involved in any of this, but I'll leave that up to you, Jack. Okay. Recommendation. Okay. Further discussions. I totally miss.

I I I would actually would be looking for your recommendation of what what if any business we have in this, I guess, is what I'm asking. If we're not going to allow approaches off of the Maitland Road and all approaches are going to be from the new newly built Aspen Drive or Sawmill Avenue if no accesses are going to be there and it's all within city limits and with with city streets. I I just don't know why we would be involved at all. Why we would be the highway authority at all this drive hasn't been approved by the county yet, is it? Not that I'm aware of. At one the last I knew of it, it was just 635 main road.

It was a driveway field approach. I think there's two other driveways on that section of homes or whatever that are no longer there. They've been removed. Yeah. So, those have been removed and then Aspen will actually replace in the same location where that existing driveway field access is. Um my understanding is that portion of Mland is still within the county's jurisdiction, which is why we proud you all. usually we can remove the highway superintendent signature if you feel it's not necessary in this case

I I don't feel that it's necessary for us to be the highway authority on this if it's in the future none of these lots are going to access the county road and if and certainly if if there's a point there we think that this road would change jurisdictions being that it's within city limits on either side so I would anticipate so chairman you're treating There's more information today. Yeah, I'm going to remove my second to the motion after the further discussion. All right. Okay. We're going to treat it as anformational and keep our nose off. Are you pulling the plaque for request or you still asking us to sign it?

If you feel your signature is necessary, we'll just remove that signature block. Yeah. Okay. Then it will go just through the final process as the board measures are all okay. I I my concern is if the city still thinks we have mainland which they do that they can put whatever driveways or reactivate whatever driveways exist along that portion which we don't want to deal with. But again it's I don't I don't think that I don't think Matland Road all the way around the bend is ours. What the part that the city paved is the cities. and the part that the city mill would also be the city's but we're we're past it.

So by doing this we're not giving up any any authority on approving post permit. I think that's the main right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. What else do you have for us Mr. Bay? you got the hill.

At this time, I don't have anything else. I would like to point out I think I gave you a picture of a bridge that we just did our own our own kind of a low slump overlay on. And this is all based off of our last bridge inspection report. I just wanted you guys to be aware when we do get bridge inspection reports and recommendations that we do do them. This is a particular bridge where I know a I think we all got an email from a a homeowner in that area that the bridge is in in terrible condition. And this is this is the bridge that we uh we picked this year to do kind of an annual facelift on and it came out real nice. Certainly looks a lot better.

Yeah, we're going to see how it holds up. I mean, that's that bridge has been kind of an ongoing issue for a while. It kind of falls between the cracks when it comes to grant applications. We're not It doesn't qualify for a for a preservation project and it's in too good a shape to qualify for a replacement project. So, this is what we did this this year. We'll we'll see how it holds up. It gets a lot of traffic and a lot of damage traffic. So, we'll see how it holds up. We did a quite a bit more extensive repair on it. We're excited to see how it holds up. I just want you guys to be aware of that when we get these inspection reports that we don't just file away and walk away. We do as much of it as we can in house. All right.

Other than that, I have nothing else for you if you don't have anything for me. Thank you. Any further questions for John? All right. Thank you, sir. Pat, would you like to come forward and let us know what you found out? Does it look like it meets your bid specifications? Yes. And so would you recommend to the commissioners that they authorize the purchase then? That's correct. Yes. Motion to follow recommendation. Okay. Motion by Flanigan, seconded by Jennings to follow recommendation approval of purchasing the vehicle. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion will say I. I. Opposed.

I don't think the chairman I don't think there's any sort of agreements or anything obviously to sign. I'm just thinking that through. But to the extent that there is, Pat would be authorized to sign all those and proceed. Fair enough. I would include it in the motion. Thank you. Thank you. Was there a time frame on when they would have that? Um I just talked to Scott and it's can be anywhere. He put in the in the bid 90 to 150 days. Um he said as soon as he gets the paperwork to order, he's going to do that. says it could be here in 60, but we figured most likely looking at February, March, maybe April hopefully. Wow.

Takes a little while. Kind of depends on which models they have on the assembly line when they get the order through. You want you want to double check and make sure the bed, not the bed size, but the inside is big enough. Yes. You don't want to get over the shoe hard spent a lot of time. Yeah, I I've measured I've went out to Queen City and measured their their upgraded models, but they're all the same as long as they change the body style on which usually by now. Yeah. So, we should be good. All right. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen.

All right. Uh, we're ready for Amber. We'll take a 3 to five minute break to let Amber get in here and get established. Take my branch.

My daughter was saying she like snakes whenever you were on I think we're back on, aren't we? Um, yep. He got you back on there. The first item is the professional services agreement from Tom Paisley, I think. Did you have the original first took it? So, we've just done this the last I don't know, I think this our third year with him. Um, we just sign a contract every year. Basically, if and when we get into a situation that we need a commercial review or something that's just kind of off,

have you very much Yeah, we probably maybe four or five times a year. Not a lot, but enough. It's a lot cheaper paying him the contract rate than having like another person to do commercial review. So, I think we paid when I looked I think that's I'm negative in that budget this year because we didn't know how much we were going to use. Um maybe 5,000 is give or take. It's not too bad and it it works pretty good. We only have maybe three to five commercial permits a year. So, it's pretty good money spent. He has all commercial

pretty much commercial because that's out of Jeff's wheelhouse because it's like most of them been kitchens like a restaurant because there's all those different things that you have to do for kitchens and fire safety and like the hood vent and things like that. That's for the most part what we've used it for. or like we used it when that house burned down to determine if the um foundation was savable or not. So, it's kind of those off ones that we end up using them for.

So, we just need to sign it. I think that's all all Bruce has had you do in the past is just sign the agreement. Nothing really had changed. Um it's 20% of the building per permit fee is what we pay him. So basically when the person pays the building permit fee, we're giving 20% of that fee to him or Yeah. or $100 an hour depending. He usually looks at it of which one is be lesser is kind of what he does. Yo that we authorize a chairman to sign the professional services agreement with consulting. Second.

Okay. Motion by Jennings. Uh seconded by Flanigan. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion will say I. I.

Opposed? Motion carried. Okay. Okay. All right. The next one is a first reading and public hearing for changes only 372 Isaac Almanza. Um the property located out on St. Anon Road. It is his goal would be to do um eight to 10 acre lots with or eight sorry eight 10 acre lots um with an A2 zoning district designation. There would be a change of zoning from A1 to A2. Um there would be a second reading on December 9th. The staff report is included. I don't know. Oh, yep. Are you here for that one? Yep.

Okay. Okay. Well, uh, this is just the public hearing and first reading. No action will be taken today, but we will have the public hearing of which I will open at this time. If you'd like to speak for or against this, I would ask that you would please stand, state your name and address for the record and and go forward. Do we have anyone in the body of the audience that would like to speak at this time? Do you want to go first or go ahead?

Okay. Uh my name is Tim Vanderhyde. I live just over the hill from uh this uh particular area. I feel a little bit like the Dutch boy uh with his finger in the dyke uh trying to speak against uh development in this area which I I guess is going to happen at some point. I know uh when Richard Steenmire was alive, he would have uh never believed that there were going to be requests to make housing developments out of his alalfa fields. But uh the world changes. I understand that. The thing that that I would uh like to bring to your attention is article two to two or A2 of the residential uh agricultural district the the the county zoning ordinance. the the the part that applies to this in the first paragraph indicates that the intent of the residential I'm going to paraphrase a little bit uh agricultural district is to provide a district that will provide a large lot buffer between A1 agriculture and municipal boundaries. As I read that statute or that particular ordinance, I guess it is uh the A1 district has to be between municipal and county. In this particular incident

instance, the land that they're requesting to be placed into the A2 district is surrounded by agricultural property. There is a I mean if if you read it broadly as I think they're wanting to do they're saying well it's closed and it is it's close to uh municipal bound boundary but there is an agricultural operation to the immediate uh immediately between the city and this particular piece of land. Uh and in fact on all sides it's surrounded by agricultural property and they're trying to skip over uh egg property in order to put in this a

hit camera. Okay. Someone online would you please mute your mic? Thank you. Go ahead. So so that's that's I'm sorry. Go ahead. I I can't hear very well, so I don't hear whatever's going. Someone got online.

U so anyway, that I I I just don't think that that this particular time is the time to do this. U it and I think that it's a violation of your of your own uh subdivision ordinance. they want to skip over. I mean, and I know that people are going to say, "Well, we've done this before." All right. I guess I'm here to say you shouldn't you should obey your ordinance. And I I think my neighbor here who's more directly affected uh may maybe wants to say something. Are you finished, sir? Yeah.

Okay. Is there anyone else in the body of the room that would like to speak for against this? Seeing none,

Rick Weller, 618 North District. I think uh we fit within all the county requirements for asking for resoning. It goes along with the Lawrence County comp plan pretty nicely. And I think it would also create a nice buffer from city limits to county. makes a nice buffer going in between. Guess I'll just keep it short and to that point. Okay. Anyone else in the body of the room that would like to speak at this time? How about online? Is there anyone online that would like to speak at this time? If so, please state your name and address for the record. Okay, one more time. Anyone online would like to speak at this time? And one more time for the room. Anyone in the room? Because I'm going to close the public hearing otherwise. Okay, we're going to close the public hearing. This was the first reading. We'll address this issue again at our next meeting. What? 9:00 a.m. Amber.

9:00 a.m. on December 9th. September 9th. Okay. Next item. We got to convene as a board of adjustment. Yes. Recess as county commissions and adjourn or come to order. Come to order as as part of the second. Okay. We have a motion by Jenny, seconded by slate. All those in favor of the motion will say I. I. Opposed. Motion carried. We are now acting as the board of adjustment. Deborah.

And this is a public hearing as well, but I'll let you open it up.

Okay. Um, so this one is a amendment to Mountain View Ranches um Northwestern Engineering Company, the Centennial Corey boundary. So if you recall, the Centennial Corey does not have a current conditional use permit. They haven't because they were grandfathered in from years and years ago. So, with this one though, when Bruce and I started looking at it, um, and with the, you know, we've talked to Northwestern Engineering and also to Mountain View Ranches and it was decided that they would still prefer to follow the regular C boundary amendment process that's in our current ordinance just to be safe so that there's public notice. You know, everybody knows what's going on. They didn't want anybody to be surprised. And what it is is the existing quarry sits right here. You can see it on the map. Um, and they are the bottom part of this about 25 acres. They are actually selling that back to um, Mountain View Ranches, which is is Tom Lean, selling it back to them. So, it's going to decrease the overall boundary of that quarry um, by about 25 acres. But in order to do that, we have to have both parties involved. There's a replat. So, you're going to see the plat later on as well. So, there's a replat involved. Um, it just kind of cleans it up, but the purpose of it is to get a better access easement into it. Right now, they go through the quarry to get to it. That would that would no longer be used and they would have a better access getting up to the house. So, they're not driving through the quarry anymore. That's really the gist of it. And, um, you know, Bart's here. They're they're uh legal counsel is present if you have any questions for him.

All right. It is a public hearing as I stated and this is a time and place if anyone in the body of the room or online would like to speak to this. So we'll open it up. We would ask that you would please uh state your name and address for the record. Is there anyone in the room that would like to speak? Just briefly. Bark Banks 224 Founders Park in Rapid City. Um I just have some certified mail. Yep. Receipts. Thank you. And just here to answer any questions. We are looking to purchase this property and close this deal. So we have some all weather access to our residents. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else in the room would like to speak?

Come on, Sarah. How about online? Is there anyone online that would like to speak to this? All right, seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and offer to the board. Okay. I'm still struggling with this amending a a cup that doesn't exist. What are we being what action are we actually doing here? You are you are going to amend the boundary of the existing property because they did a grandfathered status.

That's different than the plat. I think that's my confusion. It's not. You have to do the amendment so the quy knows that you're changing their boundary first before we can issue a plaque. So that's why commissioner plan again. Yeah, it's it's hard to explain. I it took me a while to grasp this. They have they have existing property and under a current ordinance you have to have a mine boundary. Mhm. We are the existing plat that consists of their official or unofficial or grandfather, however you want to call it, mind boundary is now being altered. Correct.

So because we're changing existing conditions to something that is not in compliance yet, you still need to have record of it, probably go through this. Well, and I imagine the only way you could really do it that makes any sense to keep in the future at some point they'd want to come in and actually do a modern C have this if they expanded it because they're changing the existing property value. Yeah. What happened is about five years ago when the Corey was originally looking at expanding

we made an agreement with them that you what's there is what's there anything changing from that you will be brought under the current regulations. So that's what it is because in our current regulations a major amendment which requires public notice says any change in the boundary that it specifically says that. So that's why we're making them do the public hearing part. And just for clarification, there can be a zero boundary buffer. In other words, when you're mining, you don't we're not it's not necessarily required that you have to have 500 ft to the edge of the property to mine anymore. I think once time that may have been there,

you still have to unless they do a waiver and yeah, it' be the adjacent property owner that would be the big one that has to do with that. this is the person involved and that's the part that I need to also make sure and clarify that fit into my yep that it's my head and so if you guys approve this buffer waiver it will go in our records not the buffer waiver I'm sorry if you include the change to the boundary that goes in our records against theirs that okay they've decreased the boundary so if at any time they decide to expand they still have to be brought into compliance under our current regulation. Okay. Is so it's just mainly so we don't lose track of what that boundary was.

Yeah. And I understand all the boundary aspects of it and and the process. Yep. The hang up with amending a cup that didn't exist. And you're not really amending a CUP but we're using the same same process just so that there was public. That was the big and I was trying to put that all together in my head to finally got to somewhere where I was comfortable with it and I had to say it out loud to make sure I was that I had it right. And then the plat that you're going to have after this shows that change. So they actually platted. This is the one. This is the new one. So we made them platted which is also good because now we have a actual boundary. Did this come before planning is over?

Yep. And they recommended approval. Okay. Motion to follow recommendation. Okay. Motion by Flanigan, seconded by Glenn Jennings to follow recommendation to for approval. Any further discussion? I was I was going to say that there's still 500 ft is in there, but the next step will be to include 500 ft next to the neighbors around buildings. That's a waiver which is still in existence. Yeah. The the time

well Mountain View Ranches doesn't care if they're closer and that's the land owner that's affected. Nobody else because none of the other boundaries change except for the one along Mountain View Ranches which is Tom Lane. Are they are you giving them w I don't think they're going to have to. Okay. From the looks of the the boundary they can. They've done one before. All those in favor of the motion will say I opposed. Motion carried. Thank you. Make a motion to adjourn. We can adjourn. Board adjustment and reconvenance. Second. Okay. Motion a second. All those in favor will say I. I.

Opposed. Motion carried. We are now back in order as county commission.

Okay. So now this one is the plat itself for Mountain View Ranches. Um there's a copy in here that shows where the new boundary lines will be. Um so the lean lot will be 72.06 acres. That's it's getting combined into that. And then lot 2R um is 55.61 and that's because that was a revised lot. It used to be lot two. Lot one R is 35.16 acres. Same thing. It's a revised lot. And then we did have them as part of this since they were platting. There was a portion of this property that sat on the other side of the highway. Um and so that is lot three which is 5.3 acre 5.34 acres. And so it is a zone. It's less than 40 but that's because it's on the other side of the road. And if you remember, Dvita won't let you do a lot. You can't have a lot one R on both sides of the road. Does that make sense? So that lot three is just platting that because we've never had it platted before. So we had to com we had to create another lot on the other side of the highway.

Lord's pleasure. Kind of cleans that up, too. Um, did you guys do exempt on this one? I can't remember. I don't think it it was fire plan exempt. Yep. So, we needed a motion for the exemption and then the preliminary move to exempt it. Second. Okay. Motion and a second. Uh, motion by Jennings, second by Flatten to make an exempt. All those in favor of the motion will say I. I. Opposed. Motion carried. Now, Commissioner Sleep, you you had a motion. Well, that took care of it, didn't it? You have to approve the preliminary now.

Oh, okay. I'll I'll make a motion to approve. Okay. Okay. Okay. And seconded by Jennings. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion will say I. Opposed. Motion carries. All right, Amber. Our last one. polymer and spinal plaque on the facility. All right. So, this one I believe has Yes, I am.

Okay. So, this one is a plat for lot 63R of track K at Paradise Acres 2. Um and what it is is it shows an existing structure and they are purchasing the easement that is on there. Um at the last uh meeting you guys I think continued this discussion to this meeting if I remember right. Um, and so there was question on whether or not that 66- foot utility easement dedicated by this plat um, vacating the centerline 66 foot private access easement plat. You can see that on the drawing. Um, you had question on if that could be done this way and if it was I thought we continued it was the um

I thought we did we continued the mountain view but you did not so they asked for reappro because there was some question on that easement that was kind of the back and forth on it. Um, and so the we went back to the lander and let them know, hey, the recommendation and they wanted to be on the phone to talk to you about that easement. And I think Brandon, your specific question was is if it was access to that back property, does did that land owner was that land owner aware of the change? I think was your specific question to me.

That's that's one of them. You can't vacate somebody else's easement. The other thing is is is that actually easement or is that a platted right plotted right away? And who is it dedicated to when it was platted? Because I don't I don't the way it's drawn on this exhibit, there's not a center line of an existing easement. It's an actually actual platted road plaway. So I guess Jean, I don't really have Oh, Lauren's here too. Lauren, do you want to explain a little bit more maybe of what you see? It was planted as a private access and utility unit for system development. So it's not meant it wasn't a public road at all.

Then then do do we have in writing from the Marlin House revocable trust? They're giving up that easement. Well, it's not meant for them. It wasn't meant for them. So it wasn't access to their property for them. Who who was it for? It was for the maintenance partners if they were to ever purchase the property past that rule. Lauren, may I just interrupt just for a little bit, please? Sure.

Okay. Uh, gentlemen, I guess this is Jean Pesco. Quite honestly, as far as that uh that easement there, we had been talking one time that we were going to purchase some of that property or we were going to do some development beyond there. So that's the reason that that went in there. Uh I mean at this point right now where there's no utility the there's there's no utilities in there for the easement. We've got utilities that are in the middle of that access which are for the existing Paradise 2 which goes all the way through there. um that we actually I guess we sold this property to Schulty in 2020. He ended up wanting I guess the thing is he wanted to we kept getting fourwheelers that were running in and out of there and we had Jeeps that were running in and out of there just uh going back there and doing four-wheeling. So, there's a gate that's been there and that's been locked and nobody's been using that whatsoever and it's only been there to keep four-wheelers and everybody else out of there. Um, I guess as far as when we talk about access, uh, and I'll let Lauren talk about the access that Hoff has got for his property, but I guess the thing is I think he owns it's it's in excess of 300 and some acres for us to for anybody to allow somebody to come on to our road, stuff like that. How would that get handled? Who would pay for all that kind of stuff? We have never ever intended for there to be access for the whole 300 acres. That's all that stuff should be coming from down at the bottom where Spearfish is. Um, so I guess guys, I mean, if you got any questions, I'll be more than happy to. Uh, I know Lauren's

got a couple of the availabilities of for them to have access. We are not landlocking their property at all. Um, so I guess right now I I'll stop with what I'm saying right now, but uh we have never intended that to be a road in there. That was only for the future if we ever wanted to buy some of that property that was put in there. Thank you. Lauren, you want to add anything to that?

Yeah, the the access to the Hoff property is coming off of Crazy Horse Lane from the Spear Spearfish side. There's also a road called Spike Lane coming up Mount Roosevelt Road that goes through U BLM and four other private owners until you get to the Hoff property. Okay. So, I think the question that I had on this one is you call it out as you're vacating the centerline 66 foot private access easement which was on plat document number 20057273. And on that plaid, it just says private access easement. It doesn't have any other documentation.

It does it say utility easement also? I don't think so. Think it did.

So, and then with that, um, there is no additional document, Brandon. It was just the old plaque. So, that's what they're vacating it off of. So, there was no like agreement of what it was because we tried finding that and we couldn't find anything. So, it was just it was on the old plaque and now they want to take it off is how I'm reading it. If uh Amber, if I might just add, please, this also is right in front of uh there the the house that was sold in 2020, the Schulty property. This goes directly right in front of their place. Uh so I guess uh that would besides the other reasons that we've talked about it would be an absolute hindrance to ever ex to give anybody any kind of access for traffic going in and out of there.

Okay. What's the board want to do? I'm still um as I'm trying to think through this. So this this is a private access for utilities that's planted in. So it I don't see No, I I want to clarify because that's that's a difference. They are asking No, they are asking for a new utility easement with this plaque, but they're vacating the private access easement that was on the old PL.

Okay. So they're vacating a private access easement. Uh they talked about the intent was never to provide access to the other properties, but I'm not sure that that matters that uh an access is an access. It doesn't matter why why you did it. So that's I'm still conflicted then with that we're shutting off access to another property without the other property owner or owner uh giving his blessing on that.

Well, may I interrupt? That that's the point. It's a private, not a public. So the person who owns that private access has control over it and it's not meant he has the it's a matter of loss of uh if the other adjoining land owner wants to use it now, but you can step in for this since you're the lawyer on this. But you're saying it never was.

Can you grant an easement to yourself, Mr. El? Well, before uh I think the doctrine of merger will probably prevent that, but I think a recent state senator kind of had that law changed so that the doctrine of merger I think has has has lessened. But may I ask a question? Is is it true to Gene and to Lauren that this easement was intended to benefit Matland partners, not for the benefit of the adjacent land owner. So the adjacent land owner would be what we call the uh the uh servant tenement and Mland Partners would be the dominant tenement because the ement was to be used to facilitate their use. Does that make sense? Is that fair?

And so to the extent that the ement is being vacated uh the benefit of that again was from Mland Partners. They're saying we don't need that anymore because we have sufficient other access. At the same time, the neighbor that you're talking about, you would argue, has has their own ability to provide access for their big parcel off of the Spearfish site on onto the uh Mland Road. That's correct. Crazy Horse Lane. Crazy Horse Lane. And the other access is from Mount Rovelt Road. I think I understand all of it now. You cleared up there, Commissioner? Yeah, I understand that this thing not comfortable, but I understand it.

Okay, sure. Ask one question. Go ahead, Lauren. Do you know does this does the neighbor I can't think of the name. Does the neighbor they have property that actually fronts the Matland Road then? Is that fair? No. Crazy Lane or Well, I think it might touch I have to look at the plat again, but it might just touch crazy. There's a access even on two different plats that goes all the way to the hot property. So, okay. I just want to clarify that that would be their intended access that as far as you know.

So, if I could ask another technical question I think would help me understand this. So, it's a private access. So, if the Hawk family wanted to use that, they would have to get permission from Melan Partners in order to do that. Is that correct? That's correct. I don't think they would right now. There's a private access that's in effect right now and it only goes to that lot and that's it on the road to their property. I think they have it when they as the lock exists right now they can drive across that private access. No, it's it's private. It's private, not public. They it's they're under the control of Mland Partners to have access to that private access.

I would say it's it's an interesting question. I get both sides of it and I don't know that there's a written document that that that shows what the intent is but as presented there's an argument to be made that that I suppose as between Maitland partners and the HOS that either of them could use it. That's probably a fair argument. Now you could argue it lots of different ways but you're trying to fix that, right? You're trying to vacate that part. We're trying to vacate it because it was always intended for mating partners' use. Gentlemen, gentlemen, this is Jean again.

I I know that, you know, we're kind of going back and forth with some legal and things of this nature. I guess the thing is uh if for some reason if you uh feel that you're going to want to deny this uh I guess I would like to ask that I have my attorney come up and represent us uh on this uh vacation of this private access easement stuff because I I mean I'm a little confused when I'm listening to it uh 300 miles away and stuff like that. If you are if if it be your intentions to let this go through, I'm okay. I mean, that's what I would like to see. But if you are looking at denying it any way, shape, or form, I'd like to has that my attorney be present at some other uh meeting or whatever you feel is proper. um to those maybe Brandon in particular is the issue you would like to you would like to be able to hear from the hoffs uh that they're aware of what's going on here and that they that they're okay with it and and if that's true there's a couple of things I would say this could be continued until the 9th and or possibly you could you could approve it conditioned upon planning and zoning receiving such a letter to be reviewed uh if you want to do it that way. Those are two options that come to mind. I don't know if they're the best ones, but

I'd be okay with it if if Mr. Hoff gave us okay. That's the simple one. The other thing is I'd like to see those the original plot in the minutes because I suspect this was a fire emergency fire egress, but they're they were utilizing someone else's existing trail as a fire egress. I couldn't find anything related to fire. I went back and looked it was about that. What's going to happen? You have your directions on how to promote if you visit with the hops if you could please have them specifically reference I don't think I don't think they want to do that oh they don't sorry

Jean do you do you have anything from the hops would they be willing to write a letter or something saying that they would be okay with this access easement going away I do not have anything Amber I I have not talked to the hawks. Uh I don't even they're from Wyoming someplace. I I don't I have not talked to him forever. Um we had communications probably about what I think that's the recommendation is they would feel more comfortable if between now and the 9th you could get a hold of Hops and make sure that he's okay with this. If he is, he can just send us a letter saying that he's okay with it. Mr. Sure.

Uh, I guess if I might please, gentlemen, I guess if I would, I guess I would like to at this point, uh, since we're going to the host, I guess the thing is if I own that property, I would definitely say, well, yeah, I want that access. I'm not going to say it's going to be okay. There's just no way I would ever want to do that because if somebody gives me an access point, it's only human nature to want to take it for uh, just accessibility and all that kind of stuff. But the Hoth have owned this property for 30 or 40 years, I guess. I don't know, so don't quote me on that. But I know it's been a long time. And they have never done anything with that property. I don't know if they got any intentions or anything like that. But I guess the thing is if I just want to make sure somehow, Amber, that we have a way that I can involve my attorney in this decision,

the legalities of it and stuff. Okay. Right. Um, so are you requesting that it get tabled?

I'm requesting that if they're going to deny it, if they're going to deny it, that we table it. But Eric Nice is my attorney and I want him to have communications with someone to get where we're at on this legally and stuff like that. Um, as I said before, if I was going to do it, I've if somebody was coming to me, I'd say, "Well, yeah, I want the access no matter what." Even though it I just I'm confused because it says vacation of a private access easement. That's what's really confused. It says private and I don't know how that could be construed to be public. Well, so I again I don't know if there are any notes from the plat that help to define the parameters of the private. I get both sides of it, but as it is, it's it's private as to who so it's not clear who the dominant and servant and tenement is. I think Mr. Pescus is arguing that they're the dominant tenement that that even is for their benefit. The hops, you know, might say, well, no, it's it's it's for both of us to use. I I can't adjudicate that, right? Um, so maybe the question then is is is there adequate access otherwise? And so I think if I heard Mr. Pisca correctly, his concern would be that if if the HOS or some other folks tried to ever develop that property would try to use that as as their main access or one of their main accesses for an adjacent subdivision across Maitland Partners, if that's fair, right? And and I think so I think that's I'm trying to define the issue here and Mr. Pesky would say, well, no, that was never the intent of it. It may have at anything been for a a just the adjacent land owner to use as is, right? Not not for a series of of a of a subdivision next door.

Am I saying that correctly?

Yes, you are. And I guess the thing is I guess I do want to say since we put I mean it comes now as uh Matland Partners was the dominant one if that's proper terminology that I'm using and I I don't mean to give legalities here but yes this was primarily only for the Mland partners. Hoff never had anything to do with any of this. I was involved in this thing with Lauren and stuff like that. So, and this was prepared by uh Eric Nice for us to have a public private easement if we wanted it. Hoff was never part of it. He never paid for none of that. He had no communication with us or anything on any of this stuff. So, that's why I'm concerned.

Jean, do you have a document that says that though? Because all we have is a plaque. I couldn't find any recorded document that said any of that information. That's what I had asked asked for originally. The document that I'm reading right now is document 2023- 01434. The date on it 41923. I don't know what else. And it was filed with Lawrence County Register of Deeds. Okay, that we just needed the document number. That's what I had. We had requested something that proved what that easement was.

Okay. All right. And all we got was a plaque. Okay. Bruce went upstairs. I think he went upstairs to get a copy of it. Okay. All right. That road that private access isn't is also not part of the road district that's out there. I think Jean stated that. I just wanted to clarify it. All right. We're going to take a few minutes here. Let Bruce do his research. Do I need Do I need to stay on the line? That's up to you. They haven't made a decision, but I think you've provided the information that they need at this point. And then Lauren can probably let you know.

Okay. I'm heading to another appointment, so I'm going to keep my phone on here and stuff like that. I hope I don't lose you. But if uh something happens that I lose you or something like that, will you I guess Lauren will be my representative. But once again, I guess uh I just I do request that my attorney if it if you're uh looking at denying it for any legality stuff like that. I think it's only right that I have my attorney there to be able to uh uh defend us because then I guess I'm doing that on the basis that I I do look at my document and it does say it's a private easement. So uh right I'll just be quiet here and listen. Okay.

Okay. Okay. Amber, this is Amy. I just wanted to let you guys know I did send Brenda both a copy of the It didn't work. Amy, the plat didn't come through. It's only half and half. Oh, I'll I can resend it. Well, I think right now her computer's all it's locked up anyway. She can't do anything with it. Can I send it to Bruce's in front of you or would you just go over to the deed's office and get a copy and bring me the whole plat down? I can do that. Thank you.

If I might just if I might just say something, please. Uh, I guess the other part of it is I want you to know that Maitland Partners is the only one that's had any financial involvement in any of this, including including buying the property, putting this document together and things of that nature. All right. Thank you. It's written on think they document and they didn't How many times? Yeah. He just says I keep quietly. Yeah.

All right. It sounds like we better uh continue this at the next meeting. Give them the opportunity to make a motion to continue. I think so. Second. Okay. A motion by flag and seconded by Jennings to continue this to the is it December 9th? It' be December 9th, Jean. And if you choose to have your legal counsel here, you you can it'll be I don't have a time yet, but probably right around 9:00 again. Okay. Uh uh so right now you're tableabling it. Yep. We we continued it to December 9th.

December 9th. Yep. Okay, that'd be fine. Okay. And then you can request Eric to be here if you want. He can always call Bruce if he wants to talk before that. Okay. All righty. Okay. I'd be happy to do that. Thank you very much for your consideration. No problem. Great. Thank you everyone. Thanks. How's in favor of the motion? Say got a motion. Yeah, I don't know. There's a second or second opposed. All right, we it's continued. I'd like to see a cop that any minutes associated with it.

All right, there's an old trail there. We are down to Brett, we are ready for you. Okay, on your 10-year reappraisal plan. All right,

you have the floor. So for the the state has started they've always audited a pretty informal equalization office. Now they're doing this online and they have many questions I have to answer and and one of them is whether I have a reappraisal plan and so I sat down and made one. Um our rea plan too has been fairly informal. We've gone usually every year and well where do we need to go? So, it hasn't always been um sometimes we've gone back to places before getting to other ones within that time period. So, I decided to make a well and the thing is too we're supposed to officially do a four to six year reappraisal plan. That's just not possible. Um with 12,000 residential properties 141 commercial and other it's just um so I I'd like to call this a reappraisal plan and not a 10year in the sense of it's just a reappraisal plan. Um it's just taking place over 10 years instead of the no state. Yeah. Four to six. Um, so and I made a map too kind of to show you the areas. Um, try to make as far as possible, but uh kind of the years and and where obviously this area is fairly large and it takes a very long time to travel around in it. So there's a lot less parcels in it that we look at, but it's uh just going to take a long time because of how it is. U same within the southeast corner. Um, so one of the other requirements was that I needed to present this to the county commission. So this is kind of just showing you what we're going to try to do as far as

a reappraisal plan and we'll try to do it, you know, just keep going at it. So, all right. Any questions for So, I guess I you know, we've heard a lot about property tax issues and a lot of that is because of the reappraisals, the the values of the owner occupied homes going up. Is that No, no, that is because market value and that is really the only the market values cause the appraisals going up those. So, as you reappraise those homes, their their their apprais value has gone up. Uh, sometimes that affects the taxes, sometimes it does not.

And actually, I would say this, honestly, reappraisal is more of what we're supposed to be doing, equalization.

It's really to go back and see if anything's been done. More of the value increases are occurring at sales time when we're getting the sales and going, "Whoa, what is going on with this property? Why did it sell for $200,000 more than what we had it value for? So then we go in and look at the listing, see if we've missed anything, stuff like that. Reappraisal honestly is looking at every property in it and going, "Okay, some of these, for example, we even went through this year went down. It is, you know, some went up, some went down, but it's really bringing them closer to what they are." So a reappraisal is more of equalization. um more of that value increase is more because of sales.

And that was my concern, Brett, that that as the values if if the values went back down that the homeowners wouldn't have to wait for 10 years to see that reflected in their in their valuation. But what you're saying is as the sales as you notice sales differences, then you go back even if it's not the the current year. That's that was my question. Yeah. So yeah, every time we look at each sale, see what's going on with it, and um there's something we've missed or because it's maybe been a lot of times people remodel before they sell. Um well, if we looked at them 10 years ago and all of a sudden there we might not have gotten back to them and realize that that's they finished their basement or built something remodeled. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Yeah.

All right. Any further questions for Brett? Mr. Chair. Brett, do you want them to take action to approve that as a as a plan? I don't know if it needs to be approved. It just needed to be presented. Yeah. All right. So, I appreciate it. Just been presented minutes. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Yep. All right. We're down to items from the public. Is there anyone in the body of the room or online that would like to speak to the board at this time? Not seeing anything. So we'll close that items from the commissioners. All right. A motion to

All right, we are journed. Okay, we shut the recording up. Thank you.