County Commissioner & Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

This conference will now be recorded. meeting in order 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.

First order of business will be to approve the agenda. Mr. Chairman, there is an amended agenda. You'll know it's amended. It says so at the top and then at 9:30 this the amendment natural resources committee plan and talk about benchmark project. Move to approve. Okay. Moved by Tis, seconded by Jennings for approval. All those in favor of the motion say I. I. Motion carried. Do we have any conflicts? We need approval of the regular meeting minutes. Approve the minutes. Second.

Motion a second for approval. All those in favor of the motion will say I. I. Opposed? Motion carried. Now we need to reassess this county commission and go into board of adjustments for the next set of minutes. I motioned. Okay. Motion by Lang and seconded by Jennings. All those in favor of the motion will say I. I. Opposed. Motion carried. All right. We are now acting as the board of adjustment. Motion to approve the minutes. Second. Okay. Motion by clim seconded by sleep approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion will say I. I. Opposed? Motion carry.

Move to recess as board of adjustment or we do have any recess if you want to because you're going to be back in later on. Okay. And to reconvene this county commission. Yeah. Okay. All those in favor of the motion will say I motion carried. Has I had my questions answered on the bills. Anyone have any questions or discussion on the bills? I'm good. Oh, I'm good. We do approve bills. Second. Okay. Second by Tisdale for approval of of the bills paid. All those in favor of the motion will say I

opposed. Motion carries personnel. Bless you. Bless you. All right.

Start with the state's attorney's office. We just have a cell phone request for Andrea Hansen. It's $50 per month starting 11:30 of 2025. Motion second. Motion say I heard And then uh through the treasur's office um we have a request to consider approving sickly donations to agent Mayard as article 4 section 4.1 of the Lawrence County personnel manual to approve this second motion by second. All those in favor of the motion say I

oppos have four personnel request one from the sheriff's office. Start with Troy Thompson. This is going to be a dual role employee. He will be a part-time fill in employee at the correction as a correction officer at a base pay of 3333. um noting that um he will be paid at his deputy to grade two wages while he is in the jail. And then a classification change for Larry Ford Jr. um going to a correction officer sergeant grade one base pay at 2741 effective 1214 and Savannah picket kits Miller is a new hire via parttime fill in dispatcher one grade one base pay at 2408 effective 129 and Lamar an Anderson is a new hire he will be a correction officer 2 grade three he will be a full-time but he will just be a temporary employee and this will be effective on 129 of Motion to approve second approval. All those in favor say I

chairman. That's all the personnel that I have. Yes, I have one. All righty. Request is for John Bade. He's requesting to attend the 2026 annual NACE conference. be held in Arlington, Texas from April 12th through the 15th. He also has signed the travel and training agreement. Move to approve travel request. I'll second that. Okay. Motion by Jenny second by for approval. Does John know that they have to report back after if that's what you want as part of your motion? But yes, he typically does as as part of his project updates.

Okay. Thank you. A written report is standard, right? Yeah, you can. Yeah. And that's typically what John does. So we don't have a standardized at this point. No. Okay. Mr. Sleep requested one in writing the last time from Amber. All those in favor of the motion will say I. Opposed. Motion carries. account with the treasure. All

righty. This is as of the end of November. Total amount of deposits in the bank is 23,69,73671. Included in that total is the bank balance of $22,499,54460 and the money market of 1,110,192.11. The total amount of actual cash is 1,350. Total amount of checks and drafts and treasures possession not exceeding three days is $40,7665. And the cash three days not exceeding three days. $364 petty cash $2,725 for a total of 23,654,5814.

Second, second by approval. All those in favor of the motion say I. opposed. Motion carries. And we did not receive the uh state health nurse agreement, so we won't be dealing with that. Uh Miss Brett, you have some abatements?

I do. I have three abatements. Uh the first abatement I have is for Mr. Mesa. He is out at 2110 Westby Drive. Uh this is the property that uh I guess we could say during the conversion we had an error and so we were just correcting it basically. Um with the thousands of properties we did every every once in a while we come up with one. So, uh, like to correct that and abate that for $83,139. Motion to call recommendation.

Second. Motion by second by for approval. All those in favor of the motion say I motion carried.

Uh, the next one is for John Wells. uh he applied for an exemption for the uh and for the veteran who would otherwise qualify for an exemption. Uh his he actually qualified as of according to his letter uh back in May and but he didn't receive it until after November 1st. Uh so he wasn't able to actually apply till after November 1st without the letter. So he is this will be for tax year 2026 payable in 27. So it's giving him the exemption state law

to do that. Y the discretion approval have a motion motion by second by we have any further discussion I just trying to sort the timeline. Yeah. So they would have to apply by November 1st to get it for 26 payable 27. All those in favor of the motion will say I oppos motion.

And the last one I have is for the city of Deadwood. Uh they purchased a building and in December 24 actually and would uh so for 25 payable in 26 we need to give the it's become exempt. So that would be $97,072. motion on second for approval. All those in favor of the motion say I Okay, thank you.

Good morning. Good morning.

Uh Mr. Chairman, at this time I'd request board approval to let the bids for our vehicles for uh 2026. This is a little bit unique in the way that we're going to approach it. We actually are going to have two separate bids. Um a little bit of uh I think appropriate strategy involved here. So Bruce M. So I think sheriff is asking permission to authorize advertisements for three half ton SUVs patrol vehicles and one full size SUV anticipated opening for December 23rd. Your next meeting approval motion second any further discussion seeing none. All those in favor of the motion will say I.

Yesterday uh Mr. Chairman, we um Commissioner Jennings and I attended a meeting uh with a number of local folks in regards to a couple of different issues with regards to federal funding. And u I think uh for the first time in some time, we made considerable progress that might have a positive impact on Lawrence County's budget in 2027. And uh that was in no small part uh the success of that meeting was in no small part uh a result of Commissioner Jennings unique understanding of a trust. And so I think that might get us over the hump and and I have some positive news in the near future. And that's what I have for today.

Any questions for the chair? How's the shop coming up there? I think it's going very well. Um, they're, as I understand it, they're building interior walls now. So, all right. Thank you. All right. Well, for the public hearing, so Mr. Bay, are you still here? We'll probably have to quit in the middle of your business.

Okay, that's right. I do have a couple of requests for permits and these are for temporary approach permits. This is from Nimon Industries. Uh they got a a log sale. It's down on Ericson Road. Um both the approaches have good sight distance. Um, I did speak with them in depth about making sure that they remove the approaches when they're done, which they did on the last ones. We went down and inspected those at the same time. Um, you know, last year about this time they did they did a similar log sale just a little bit further to the north and and they have reclaimed those approaches. So, uh, I have that as a condition of these as well, um, just to keep the sidebyside traffic out of there and, you know, not making them permanent. So, um, I would I would recommend that we we approve these so they can get this log sale started.

Motion to follow recommendation. Second.

Okay. Motion by, seconded by Sleeve. All those in favor of the motion say I motion carried. And the next thing I have on there, um, we ran into a snag again with some equipment purchases. Our, you know, we took a possession of our new plow truck this year, but none of the snow equipment or the majority of the snow equipment isn't here. It's not going to be done by the end of the year. We're not going to get build for that this year. Um, state law requires that we're supposed to have everything in in our possession before we can pay for it. So, we can't really prepay for some of these items. Um, they told me that the truck body probably won't be here until June of next year. So, big hold up on that. But we did we do have in our possession or we can have in our possession is one of the graders. Our first grader showed up last two weeks ago now. So, and we have already uh gave them our trade in so they can start switching it over. So, um we can take possession and be built for that machine by the 17th. And I would like to do that. That really offset our help our budget for next year so we don't have that shortfall of equipment purchases. So, um we would have a slight shortfall this year of course, but we do have the funding available right now to cover it. So, I would like to get your approval to buy one of the sixth graders and then that would free up the the funds to pay for that snow equipment next year.

Do you see any issue with that? Okay. I'll make a motion to follow recommendation allow the purchase of the one graater in lie of equipment for the truck. Second motion by second by Jennings. All those in favor of the motion will say I I thank you. Is that you plow available?

No, no, we still have we haven't traded off our any other snow plows other than the ones from last year. So, we're still full full equipment. The truck that this will replace, we're actually going to move up to the public safety center. Okay.

So, they have a one of our smaller trucks up there with a with sand. We've already uh we've already built a sand pile up there so they can have sand on hand. You know, we we make a round through there when we can, but we're not always available. So, we're going to move one of our sand trucks up there so they can have it throughout the winter. And uh when we don't get up there in time, they'll be able to they already have enough plow equipment up there, but that that hill gets pretty slippery. So they'll have a one of these sand trucks up there. So that's what we plan on doing with that sand truck that we're replacing.

And I guess the next thing on my my list is the uh I gave you guys all kind of a draft agreement here. I sent it as well to Bruce ahead of time. This Because it is talking about commission adjustment. Oh, board of

adjustment. Hi Okay. Okay. Well, um, so I have this draft. This is this hall route agreement for the proposed CUP 498, the gravel pit up on the Larsson road

or the Larson pit up on the on the home state road. So, um, everything that I have here is is up for for your guys's discussion and review. Um, anything that you see either highlighted, bold or underlined, uh, is things that have been added or or changed from the previous agreement. Um, I know there were some things, like I said, I had given this to Bruce ahead of time so he could kind of review it and I would I would refer to him for any of the legal type of uh, contractual agreements here. So, whatever questions you may have, I guess I would try to answer best I could or I'm sure Bruce can help out.

Is also here. Did you want to add anything to this, Cameron, prior to us getting into discussion? Yeah. The only thing I would like to recommend is from from the entrance to the pit to to Hills View to the service road 14. speed limit be 35 instead of 45. I guess that would be my only concern that area for discussion.

Correct. It is it is and part of that road is that speed limit. There is the speed reduction through the through those narrow areas. So it wouldn't be real hard to change it the whole way and it would be a reasonable request for sure. I guess I'll kind of start a conversation on that. Pearls has offered to help widen that narrow spot out. I've been given that a lot of thought and that's probably something that Lawrence County should have done years ago because it's definitely very narrow and they maybe should have done it years ago. So, I would think that even though they they want to participate and probably furnish some materials and and some of the work, I think we should also be involved in it to make it a a safer spot for for the county. So, uh, that's kind of my thoughts on that.

Yes. Thinking about things. I think the overall concept here would be whatever improvements that you have made would be part of either one or more projects that would be county projects that we would go through the bidding process on, uh, thinking that we would then be reimbursed to whatever extent we agreed upon by the by the operator. Does that make sense, John? That correct? And so just to kind of have that in the back of your mind, we have to identify what work you want to have done. Uh we probably then have to go back to the developer, the the operator and make sure that they're willing to participate. Maybe get some engineers estimates. I don't know. Um so there might be several steps involved here before you can kind of finalize the agreement. Seems to

need to start somewhere. I had one suggestion that uh we not tar the road from uh down bottom of the hill up to the turn off of the mine. They should leave it in gravel and that I had one one person comment on that and I we've uh had to pay lawyers fees for Mrs. Wing and company several times and now we're tired of the road halfway up to her place. I don't think that's necessary.

I would also uh to get this done in any kind of time frame or soon time frame. I would like also like to bring to the attention that you know we cut our budget for next year. So, I don't you funding may be an issue if we're going to participate in some of this or if we're going to pay and expect to be reimbursed um for 2026. I mean, we we cut back a lot of our a lot of our budget for a lot of projects. So, um I guess if we were going to go forward, if we were going to participate in some of these re road reconstructions, we we maybe have to look at some funding, you know, or how we're going to fund it.

Well, The only one I would I think that we should participate would be the widening of that narrow spot. I don't see that as any thing on the contractor or the land owner out there. The painting part uh they've to offer to do that part at no cost to the taxpayer as well as maintain it through the life of the pit. Uh, I don't know that I care one way or the other if that road's paved or not, but if you've got a company that's willing to pay for that at no cost to the taxpayer that I think we need to consider it. Didn't they offer to widen it the whole time?

They did. They did. Yeah, that's what I thought. I don't know that I don't think that the county should participate monetarily project. No, the only thing I think we need to participate in is that narrow spot because I think after thinking about it, I think that's something we should have done years ago. Well, possibly, but they offered and so in my mind we didn't make a requirement. They offered to do it and and uh they probably penciled it in. So I mean why when not accepted? Y

if you conclude on those areas then is it I'm just trying to think out loud. Would it be fair to have John Bay then go and get some engineers estimates of what that would be? Is that going to be the next steps for your what your budget's going to Well be them paying for it I guess right? So, so that would take care of that. But then just to reconfirm that they're willing to make that contribution in whatever amount it is. I'm sure it's relatively dimminimous, but I have no idea. Well, their willingness is means nothing because they offered to do that to get the project. So, I don't know that they have a choice of whether they're willing or not. The choice is that they can use the original route whole route to the west.

True. They were willing to widen the road to the east in exchange for allowing that to be the route. But I I do want to make sure though that that any engineering and work need to have some control over John said that these improvements have been suggested. Do you have a recommendation on them? It is not counter to anything that you know of to do these improvements?

No, I don't I don't think it's counter to do these improvements. I think these improvements would be a benefit. I don't I've spoke quite a bit with a few of you about different different uh obstacles and pros and cons to each. Um as far as the county standpoint, I don't think this paved road versus a gravel section road in this area, I don't think our maintenance, winter maintenance would not change. we do the same amount of work on that road whether it would be gravel or paved. Um as far as uh we've had this discussion in the past as pavement versus gravel, you know, the the expense up front is a little more for pavement, but the overall maintenance of pavement versus gravel from year to year is is is kind of negligible. It's it's very similar. So, um I think that having this road paved, there's a lot of benefits. Um when you're dealing with dust control, I mean the probably the ultimate form of dust control is a paved road. You know, you don't get a lot of dust off pavement. So, um if if dust is an issue in this area with the the homeowners being that close to a a gravel quarry and the hall route creating the dust, you know, it would be hard to say that pavement isn't going to be a solution to that problem. So,

that would be a big benefit to that. John, do you still have I think there's been concerns over summertime use of that road and the asphalt got hot enough that it could ripple as the trucks go down.

That is a possibility and that's where I think that we would have to have or would would want some sort of an engineered involved to have a design mix so we don't just have a inferior product in that in that area. um there are better asphalts that hold up to that type of traffic and I think that's where you know having an engineer involved so we can control the design mix and the application of it throughout that project. So um it sounds easy just to come in and pave. You see it happen every summer here. You know, you get people come in from all over the country and they'll pave up people's driveways for cheap and then two years later that pavement is junk.

To have it done correctly and to have an engineer involved I think is is crucial. Okay.

I did I had some questions as far as a couple of the items on here. you know, that the uh if this hall route were to to go to the east, if it would be acceptable and if if it works out, um if the contractor is going to pay for some of these, are are we going to still try to levy some sort of tonnage fee or is that going to be removed? And then the other one I have is the 80,000 lb or less limit because, you know, our roads are posted at 80,000 out there on West 14. I know the uh the the operator requested to have that raised. I don't want to raise that for our other roads. That's why I put in the 80,000 pound or less. So, I'd like to stick with that, but I want your guys' input on it.

All right. That's all right. I'm sure I'll think of something when I'm sitting here. recess. All those in favor of the motion say I

motion carried. All right. Place for public hearing resolution 2025-47. That's the resolution 18. And we'll go ahead and have it presented here again. And uh it it is a public hearing. So, we'll offer the opportunity for the the those in the room as well as online to uh enter into uh or against this and and if we do have someone, I would ask that they would uh please stand and state your name and address for the record. Go ahead,

Bruce. You should all have in your packets the relevant information concerning 2025-37 vacation up in the mountain area. John Frederickson is here. I think surveyor Randy might be here as well if you have any questions. Appears to be rather straightforward to eliminate that portion of the section line crossing lots two, three, four, and kind of move it into lot five surrounding Unicorn Court. I think that the reason for it is basically just to remove the incumbrance. Not at this point for any other specific purpose. Looking at the property owners that did sign it, the petition, I think they all signed it except for there was an exception of one land owner. Majority did sign and and we have not heard any opposition to the to the petition. Okay, Mr. Frederickson, did you want to add anything? Um uh there are some other reasons that the section line was discovered when they were having they were getting a building permit and and so it was suggested that it be vacated and that's what they intended on doing. But the section line in as it runs across those four lots runs either between buildings and garages and houses and stuff and so they just want to vacate it so that they can clear their property of the section line. Okay, we will we will uh open it up for the public hearing and then we'll have further discussion here. But is there anyone in the body of the room that would like to speak to this this time?

Thank you, Randy Diver, 1715 Scott Avenue. And I'll just note that we have several of these in these old subdivisions throughout the county. And as we move forward and as many of them as we could clean up, we should. A lot of the building permits were issued with the section lines going through and staff didn't know it, although it's shown on the plat. So I think every opportunity that they're voluntarily cleaning them up, it's a great idea. Thank you. Anyone else in the room that would like to speak? How about online? And is there anyone online that would like to speak to this?

Okay. One more time in the room. Anyone? Not seeing anything. We'll close the public hearing and offer to the board. Commissioner Sleep, you had a question. Well, I was just kind of wondering if uh does any of the neighbors go between their buildings to get there or on the section line? No, I don't think it's No, the section line is just you can't really tell it's there. We didn't know about it until it was surveyed. Thank you.

Motion to approve the resolution 2025 page 37. Second. Okay. Motion, seconded by Jennings for approval. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion say I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. motion to recess one more

public hearing which is transfer of retail. So this here is um transferring is the um campground. They are purchasing this one and uh they do have the affidavit authorizing the transfer. They are just asking to transfer this. Also um we have to have that we haven't gotten the information back from DCI yet for their background check. So if you do so approve this, it would be contingent upon us receiving that before we mail it to the partner.

Okay, it is called hearing. Is there anyone in the room that would like to speak for this? I went online not seeing any public hearing motion to approve with the contingency that we get from DCI. Second. Okay. Motion by seconded by Mr. SL. Any further discussion on it? Seeing none. All those in favor of the motion say I car. Thank you.

Yeah. Now motion to recess from board vice verse a lot like Willy Wonkot. All those in favor motion say I motion carry. All right Mr. We're back in the back in the boat. Thank you for allowing us to That's all right. Time to get caught up.

Okay. I think when we left off, you know, I I was talking about the the weight the weight rating uh for that east route. Um all of our roads once you get off the gravel are posted at 80,000 lb. Um, I would like to leave it at that. I don't want to I don't want to raise that. I also made a uh an addition um after speaking with the the proposed operator of this mine site and his request to have seasonal load limits kind of uh not followed. And I would I would want to make sure and I added that in here that this agreement will not take the place of nor will it be exemption of any seasonal load limits. You know those are kind of presented to us by the state uh annually they ask us to you know in the spring of the year when the the thaw is you know to post our roads

it is for the protection of our roads. So I want to leave that in place as well. Um again, and then uh the the tonnage, we just need to figure out if we're going to if they're going to be participate in a road improvement, if we're going to, you know, the the reason we charge this a per ton price is for for road maintenance. And they're kind of they're taking that on them themselves. So, I guess I would think that we wouldn't really have that clause in there for for this particular site, but that would be up to you guys. My only thought would be they can go the other direction as well and we do have to maintain that. They're not going to pave that area. That's right. We still have expenses going that direction. That is correct.

Yeah. And I guess if that's the case, then we need to come up with some sort of a a price. The other mine that's on that road, we it's it's a nickel a ton is all they're being charged. This one we talked about 25 cents a ton, but I don't think that was ever decided upon. That was just that was just for discussion and I guess that would be the continuing discussion at this time. That certainly should be something that's fair practice we're already doing. So if I remember correctly uh Mr. Bay that 25 cents was going to cover two mag water treatments on that road is essentially what it was going to do. It would cover whatever would be required. Mhm.

But that's kind of where we were correct where our budget was kind of and I think it was also if I can remember right and I think I'm right when we talked about the 25 cents per ton that would be a starting point and then it could be come back it could be reduced if it if if it was covering the expense. So I mean that again would be a decision we could make. I'm just kind of hung up on charting the other one five cents. Well, that's probably too cost.

That shop probably should be reviewed on the other one. Yes. Time to review and bring it up equal to guess. Well, I don't think that if I remember I don't think the 5 cent cost covered the the cost that we have. Probably not. Doesn't cover the mag. No, I will say that the other gravel pit, they pay to chloride that section of it datam or whatever road out there.

They don't pay the main road. They they they pay for the that mile or half a mile or whatever it is into the pitselves and the citizens and stay at make. All right. What where do we want to go from here, Bruce? Well, I think John has some information now. So, John, would you go back then to the operator and and and convey this to them and then assuming no objection, proceed to probably get some engineers estimates? Is that a fair way to proceed?

I think it would be a very fair way to proceed. Um, I guess I just need to kind of look into how we're going to fund some of this as far as getting the uh engineers estimates and things like that. So, yeah, I think if I may just talking briefly to Brenda because you did reduce your budget. It hasn't been budgeted for, have to find those funds, have to get an idea of what it's going to be, uh, pay for it probably up front and then, um, get reimbured. We have to supplement your budget beforehand in order to pay for it. Does that make sense? So, There'd be a process there we'd have to work through. It's very clearly we' have to uh supplement the budget and then get reimbured.

All right. But stay tuned. I can work on some estimates. I can come up with some of my own estimates and then I can confirm it with an engineer and I might be able to reduce the cost of at least getting estimates by quite a lot. Everyone on board with that? All right. to hear from you again, sir. Haven't finalized yet, just for the record. Just putting a draft together, right? Stay tuned for more.

Okay. Well, that's it for me. I appreciate uh the uh approval for this trip, the NA trip. It's I I those conferences are always uh very informative and kind of the leading edge of everything that's coming. So, it's it's good to attend. appreciate letting me go with that. Thank you. Thanks for going. Yeah. So, move. Favor. We'll say I We're going to take a quick break here. Get reconigured down here. So, we'll take at least a five minute break. Thank you. I'm turn

All right. The first one is we have the first reading in the public hearing November 25th. It's change zoning 72 owner applicant Isaac Almanza. And today we'll uh uh the hearing has been closed. So today is just for discussion of the board. Amber, do you want to refresh our memories?

So, the change of zoning um request is to go from general agricultural district to residential egg district. Uh the access to this parcel will come off of St. On Road. Um the request is to subdivide the property into four lots or 40 acres with a density of 8 to 10 acres per lot. Um

and then it's still in that district because it's an A2 district. It is intended that all lots would be responsible for their own water supply and intend for lots to have individual septic systems. Keep in mind any platting to go through this property will go to the city spear fish. So you guys won't actually look into class because it's in spirit's planning jurisdiction. Um the application requirements were all met. Uh the planning and zoning are in here. Um planning and zoning did recommend approval. There was a motion to deny, which failed for a lack of a second, and then there was a motion to approve, um, which did end up passing with a one, two, three, four to two vote on that one. Um, and then other than that, I mean, it's it meets all the requirements. Um, from from my standpoint, I know there was discussion on this distance to the municipality of the city spet and the city's in coming over the hill. Uh, city limits to the west as well to the south. Uh, electric has also purchased a piece of property that's on the north end of this. So, I've I've struggled with this. I'm tempted to support it today. Discussion. I think the character of that area is large lot residential. I I know it is.

Initially when this came up, I had Amber look and see what may or may not be in compliance out there and it seemed like everything was oddly in compliance which surprised me because there as many houses fall along that that stretch. Um it it's it's a it's a beautiful area. It's a desirable area. I understand people's desire to want to keep it the way it is. I think this is a decent compromise to have large lot residential in there and not not uh not high density. It is right by the city. Of course, we're missing by there's a land owner in between, but you can throw a rock and hit it. Um, I I I think it's a decent compromise from from what the original proposal was and I I'm going to support it as well.

Well, I I'm not going to support it. I think it shouldn't be. I think it should be left in agriculture and there's agriculture all the way around it. And if they do what he wants to do with it for A2, I have bring probably 300 more votes there. and and then we'll be voting on whether we want to have a a gravel pit, which there's a gravel pit just around the corner from that that and we'll be arguing on that. And then uh we'll also uh the livestock uh St. An's livestock isn't very far from from there either and they u uh have smell and sound to contain with. They run they run them probably close to 80,000 head of cattle through their ear and and uh so that and there'd be a lot more people to look for. So I don't think we should do it and that I think that uh we should end right right there otherwise we're going to run into problems down the way. So it's why I feel

well commission's comment about the proximity to city limits. We did some measuring upstairs. I think it's about 500 city limits. That's not exact, but that's using the measuring tools that we have here. Why why does that why does that matter? Rose, I'm just following up on what Brandon said about

we created A2 for this very purpose to be a and city and more higher density and there's there's ordinance for a reason. and they followed all of them and it basically follows the comp plan. And if we're not going to allow people to look at the ordinances and figure out what they can do with their land and then approve it and follow our own ordinances, we better be changing them. And uh eggwise, you know, there's Yes, there's a gentleman there has a couple hundred acres. There's a lady in back that should be under a cup because commercial or she is. Okay. Uh, I stand corrected.

Right next door to it. There's a CP right next door to this property. The Suns for a commercial entity. So, we can have some control over that. So, I think they've done everything they need to do. I think the True Egg and more grow larger egg is around the corner down the road and I think it fits this location. Yeah, I certainly wouldn't support any more of this to the north of this property. It's definitely act from there on, but my earlier statements that the city is right there now and uh they're coming in from the west over the hill. So,

and also as you stated, but electric owns property to the north of this and they're going to be coming in wanting to put a big facility there and that's why they bought it. And I'm hearing support with other commissioners for that. Well, that's commercial. So, it uh No, I support this. Okay. Amber didn't recommend it as commercial there. My son is the CEO of Mid Electric and he said he talked to you about it and before they bought it to do a change in correct they could apply for CP.

That's what I told him. Any further discussion? Just I I agree with everything that's been said. This is a pretty tough tough one. It is very close to the city of Spirish. It probably does follow the comprehensive plan. It's also surrounded by agriculture and there's agriculture from there on on north. At some point we got to just draw the line and say this is where agriculture is going to start and this is where it's going to stop. And uh you know the other thing I'll just you know as as commissioner I hear a lot of comments about people in development. Um, I've heard one comment that that this area should be developed and lots of comments that should not be developed. So, um, I'm not going to support those.

I move to approve change order number 30 372. Okay, we got a motion by T now seconded by Flanigan for approval. Further discussion? Well, like I say, I think you got to start and stop somewhere. You can't just keep going down the way. Everything shouldn't be developed in Lawrence County just because you can develop it on that. I'm still going to vote against it.

Well, oh, this makes a cute little comments. I have struggled hard with this one. Uh, and prior to was a no on it as well. And I do support egg. my own egg and I I hate to see all getting built on, but with everything that's happened with this, I'm I'm going to support it today. Any further comments? Okay, seeing none, Brenda, would you please do a roll call? Jenning may hi. No, I two passes. All right.

So, this would hopefully I'll still get it in the paper. Um also try to send it out to the meeting if the paper can fit it posted on Saturday and then it's 30 days 20 days from Saturday. Okay. Thank you. All right. Next one commission transfer of the CP right I forgot

second motion by Jennings seconded by Tisdale all those approve the motion say I opposed Motion carries. We are now acting again as Laura. Okay. Good. And I haven't met these guys. So Jeremy and Josh, are you I'm Josh.

Okay. Just making sure. Um so this is the uh Carson Cottages out on Roxford Road. Been in existence for many many years. Um I think it originally started in 999. 1999 I think is when it originally started. Um, if you guys kind of recall, Joyce, um, BM passed away quite a few years ago. Joyce has been trying to keep it going, but she has had it on the market for a couple years and it did sell. Um, and so as part of that, um, you know, Joyce has been in contact with me. Uh, Tyler Shad, who I think is the, um, the purchase person in between, realtor in between, um, got everything together. And then Josh and Jeremy, Jeremy Miller and Josh have purchased it under KW Generations LLC. They would like to continue operating it pretty much as it is. Um they we talked to them at quite length of you know what the requirements would be if going forward they decide to make the changes. If they do make any changes, it has to come back before the board you know changes and see if they would do it. But for the time being they'd like to just pull it straight across. They'll continue to rent the cabins, have a couple campsites there. Um, there's a kind of side building that, you know, you can rent out for like events and picnics and small things and things like that. That's all kind of inclusive of this. Um, so for now, they just want to transfer it straight across except the same conditions that were already in place.

Your office is not having any complaints or problems. ever complaint from this property?

It's been on an as needed basis for probably over 10 years and I did include in your packet. This this is one of those that we do not have digitized so you got to go find it. Um so they're they're just scanned in copies of what we found in the folder. Um so this will digitize all of that. Now we've got it all scanned in and ready to go, but conditions what we've done in the past. If you want to, we can update the you know the specific ones like um because the these like this talks about the 1997 life safety code. So normally we just update those to current coding. If they would do anything new, it has to come up to current code. Um, so those we would usually update those. Uh, it talks about um the DNR, you know, normally we just update that to be DR because they changed the name of it. Uh, the only other section that I saw is um this still talks about a Lawrence County zoning ordinance definition of 1.33, a specialty resort. Well, that section doesn't exist anymore because our numbering has changed. So, usually I just go through and I would update just those specific ones to make sure it's with current stuff.

Okay. Do we just need a simple usually a motion to approve the transfer? I'll make a motion to approve the transfer CFP250 with the modern updates to the conditions to include life safety codes uh the correct section of the ordinance and DRS and DR. Yes. Okay. Motion by second by Jennings. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those approval will say I. I pass.

So that's it. Josh is ready to go. And then I will get you the updated conditions. It's just basic updates though, like I said. So I'll send those out to you as soon as we get done. Okay. Thank you. The next one we will still act as board of adjustments request to rebuild burn down home on same site the owner. Okay. Um this came in.

Yeah. So we had him do a site plan and that's what was in your packet here. Um and I don't know if you know where this property is. It's just outside St. Lawrence there. They have an existing house that sat right here. Um, and it did burn down enough that they had to tear it down, but they're able to reuse the foundation. Well, that existing foundation was already there. They didn't want to necessarily have to do it. And as part of the building permit process, it was found that the existing foundation only sits 22 feet from the property line, but I couldn't tell you how long that house has been there. You know, it's been there a long time. So when they came in, we started working on this and getting a new one. Um they have the they'd like to put the new house on the existing foundation. It'll be a stick built house. Use the existing foundation. They did um have the septic system and drain field checked. Everything was fine with that. There was no damage to it. So they were able to, you know, they just hook up. Everything's already there. So they don't have to move anything. Um, and then normally in the past whenever we've had a fire situation, you have normally waved their building permit fee. Um, that's kind of always what we've done. So, two things. One, are you okay with them using the existing foundation because I usually don't have them go through a variance in this procedure because it's already there. And two, to wave the building permit fee.

Okay, they met all the other requirements. But as soon as possible, this house was built before the requirements for setbacks. Correct. And it's a quarter quarter description too. So that usually has some play in its own. I would still recommend that we figure out a way to go through the variance process to make it into compliance for next time they sell it or whatever. I don't mind going through the process. Would you be willing to maybe wave their fee and do it as an administration?

I would I would make a motion to allow this structure to be built on the existing foundation and requesting and zoning have them go through the variance process to come into compliance and wave that fee as well. And the building

further discussion clean it up saying none. All those in favor of the motion will say I they won't have a problem with that. We can just let me just get it cleaned up.

Second. Okay. Motion second by all those in favor of the motion say I car. All right. Ready? Ready for all the plaques? Yeah, go ahead.

Okay. Um, so the first one is 202584. Um, it's for Mike Schulty and Partners LLC. It's for lot 63R of Track K and a portion of Track Kit Acres. So, if you remember, um, this one was based on that easement that you guys looked at it last there was some questions, you know, to go forward on it. Um, and you know, was Oh, you're here. Okay. How you doing, Amber?

So, I'm gonna let you kind of explain maybe your side because they heard my side. Absolutely. Come on.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Eric Nice Jean Peska asked me to be here to kind of make his pitch for him. Um, and uh, I've talked about this with Bruce. Unfortunately, we're looking at an area where there just isn't a lot of law. Uh, I wish I could take a statue and wave it in your face, but I can't because there isn't. Uh, and the the basic question is is how do you get rid of a private? My my position and my dad before me has has always been that that the if the proprietor of plat and anybody on the plat who's affected by the easement agree to it they can do what they want because it's not a public ement. Uh our position is that's what's been done. Uh Melan Partners originally platted this I don't 20 25 years ago put in a private access easement. Gan will swear up and down that it was put in to allow the uh electric company to access the power lines. Uh but there's no question it touches the edge of of the property. Um he a couple years ago asked me to vacate the easement uh so they could replplat the lots because there was no need for the access easement because it was realized that the utility easement did everything. So there's still utility easement there still power lines as far as I know. Um but wanted to replat it. So there's one one lot there. Uh I know questions have have arisen. Did they have the right to do do that? My position is they did uh because everybody on the plat who's who's affected by this has consented to it being Mland partners and the Shashulties. Uh I know the argument has come up well what about the neighbors? You know we have people

buying and selling land in in reliance on this easement. I I guess my response is that's why you get a public easement or that's why you get an easement of your agreement. I think the issue is uh if somebody right next to it is allowed to rely on it, then is somebody three sections over allowed to to to rely on it? I mean, there's a question of it's a private easement. Uh there's no easement agreement on file saying which which lands are uh benefited by it. If we simply say that the neighboring property owner has some vested right based on a private e easement based on a plat that this land isn't even a part of where where does it stop? We're giving somebody rights that weren't given to them by the original plat. So I guess our position is uh the parties who were benefited by this easement are both consenting to it being vacated. Uh and we'd ask that the plat move forward. That's our pitch.

Further discussion. Couple of questions. Is there a power line over this area now along right in front? It doesn't go down the road, but it's right in right in front of the road. So it's not going over where this easement is. It doesn't go through where this private No, nothing going unless there unless somebody unless there's a private line going to the house that's nearby. Okay. But there's no major nothing major going along that road. But I will clarify, they're not vacating the utility, right? The utility isn't the same. It's just the right. My other question is the neighboring land at this point. I don't know.

No, I haven't. Bruce, I think Amber did some looking too to look back at the time that the plat was approved to see if there was discussion about why the easement was there and whose behest it was placed on there. And I don't think there's any information to that effect. There was nothing in the minutes that it was like for a because Brandon had asked, you know, was there something that said it's for fire, you know, anything like that. I couldn't find anything at least listed in the minutes and it's not on the plat in that way. It was everywhere that I can find it just references private accesses and utilities.

Just in furtherance of the discussion, it may come down to a question as Eric has sort of alluded to. I think he would say that that his clients put these on there to service for their own purposes. uh it was not done behalf of the county uh for any third party. And so then it comes down to an interesting question about if a plan is approved and it is certain that that that an easement is put on at the behalf of the county so it's the condition of approval. Uh you wouldn't want somebody then later on to necessarily without notice going and and altering and altering that that easement. Correct. And so we may have to like maybe change our procedures a little bit and require some additional information if it was he's been required by the county to put on the plat that you know it should be vacated except upon the express approval of the county or something like that. Uh the the enforcement of that is questionable but at least it would put somebody on notice but then I circle back. So I guess maybe the question here is is is why was it there? I have no contradictory information uh to to to help you make your decision uh in in that regard.

And I I totally agree with Bruce and we've talked about this kind of from the practitioner standpoint because I I mean I've I've been involved in PLA where we we have a private e easement to have a back door for fire access and I that to me is a different story than than than this. And I we should maybe not now talk about what the process for that is. My understanding based on this is that's not what happened here. It was a private ease but put put in for the benefit of the developer who doesn't want it. If

I can ask one more question here. The neighboring property uh do they have access off of the Mland Road? So I don't you know it's it's it's Doug and Molly Hoff who I I represent too and I I'm well aware of this land because it's I was I was negotiating with with Toot Gold. I don't know if they can they it's a thousand some acre property and generally the access has been well it's been from close to Bob's property. Exactly. I don't know if they can access Mateland Road from it. I don't know if they want to because again generally the access has been from Yeah.

So it raises an interesting question. So to the extent that the house would rely on that easement arguably it would be a limited easement. It wouldn't be something that they could subdivide their thousand acres and add you know uh however many houses onto that right it would probably be for what it is is

one for you know I don't know right it would be very the burden would be fairly limited. Um, I don't know if that's helpful or not, but I just I I throw that out there as well. Um, so yeah, you just couldn't automatically put a subdivision on that adjacent thousand acres and probably funnel all that traffic onto Mland Partnersh. Okay. Further dispatch action. Just remember that access over to Hops that I cannotify anything on it. That's Yeah, that's your charge. Yeah. Yeah. And just one more if I

I don't remember it being a reason for us. I don't remember it not being reason. when normally when I go back and look at the minutes if it's like if it was specifically okay this needs to be here for whatever it usually was emergency pretty well in there and that that was started getting documented on the plat shortly after this one yeah I mean normally you can find it I don't remember

and that's what surprised me is it didn't specifically because normally like your old staff would have said this was for this purpose or the minutes would have said this is for this purpose or the plat would have said this is for emergency fire ease you know whatever and it just in this case it was hard to say I don't know if you're speaking on behalf of the house maybe maybe not but you're not operating your answer against this on their behalf no I haven't talked with them about this in a small town you represent everybody so I I know Doug he's a wonderful man I just I haven't talked with him about it because I haven't been directed to talk Okay.

If I can just Mr. Chairman, just say one more thing. One thing that Bruce and I did talk about was the and I don't know if Lauren has provided the uh the the plat before had talked about it being vacated. This plat I asked him to change that because it my position is it was vacated two years ago. So he has updated it which just basically refers to when it was v vacated. And I I talked to Bruce about that. I just if it's approved, I would I would ask that it be approved with an updated language. Just Well, I know Lauren, did you bring Okay, just because we had signed.

Yeah. Well, and see that's I I I wanted to make sure everybody's aware. I I would if it is approved, I would ask that it be with that reference updated. So, it's so it's reference that and that's exactly what he he's got. It just says uh vacated by doc 20 2314 whatever. We weren't trying to be presumptuous but wanted to be able to present that as an option so you can see what that would like if that was

exactly to approve. if they did an exempt flim.

And if I can just say one more thing. Oh, was there a motion? I'm sorry. Just just one more thing. I've got Joe Joslyn here. The the if you'll remember, we set up a road district for this. just for the commissions, the road district fully supports get getting rid of this. It supports just makes it very clear there's not an exit out of this that isn't uh retained. So I just the

the road authority is in support of this and Joe's here for answering any questions if somebody will say I motion carried. All right, got that out of the way. Is this road on the road district map? Uh, not the east. Yeah, we specifically made it not on the road district map because they didn't want

That's correct. And what you mentioned about not being able to um use this easement then to access new development and hundreds of homes and all that traffic onto our roads where we have no ability to collect funds to address the damage to the roads from that traffic. That was our main concern. So we fully support Mland Partners request. Okay. If we could get your name and address for the record. Joe Joselyn 20686 Morning Star Road. Thank you. Joe, can you spell your last name for us? Yeah. J O S L I N. And I'm one of the three trustees on the road district. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. And we don't need pardon me.

We don't need traffic coming from 1300 acres back over. That's the way it is. And I remember it. I make a motion to approve it. I'm not I'm glad I'm not the only one who gets confused. Yeah.

I'll second it for further discussion. Further discussion on the motion for approval. I'm just a little perplexed that this is the third time we've dealt with this and every time we brought up the fact that it's the neighbor and land owner been contacted and we still haven't. It seems to me that that would have been an easy solution to to contact the neighbor land owner and relieve our concerns. All right, further discussion. We need to do a roll call. Go for it. Jenny, I sleep. Hi. N. Thank you.

Thank you. 89.

20289. All right, Randy, go for it. I'm not even try that work.

Well, I have I brought a I brought a simpler drawing. The other drawings are pretty busy, so I thought the simpler drawing might be an easier discussion point on the drawing you're about to get. The blue is the new lot lines and the red is the old lot lines. And I think that's important. Take as many as you need. That's important because that's a government lot. Yeah. Yeah. So, uh, what you what you see is we're making three lots into four and the three existing lots have two homes, one home on one each of the two two of the lots and the third lot does not have a home on it, which used to be tracked one. Okay. So our choice was and the only reason we're including lot V J3 Rvised is because uh it's park forest zoning and it shows the acreage total meets the park forest zoning and we're dedicating the rightway on that lot. That's why it's included in the plat and the owner will sign the plat otherwise the boundaries of that lot are not changing. So we have three existing lots. We're adding a fourth. Uh we built a road up to the property going through the Deer Mountain Village because the BLM permit has been uh closed going out the other way. So we built the road up there. We did the best we could on the road because it fits between the tank farm and the county road. And when we graded it in some areas were a little over 15%. for the 15% as you recall in the PUD we had some areas in the PUD that had that as well. John Bay looked at the road his report talked about it. He suggested we put up a signage a sign typical of what Kuster County is doing and we we we'd be glad to do that and we already talked about where we'd place it. So, if you

read the staff report, they they uh had four uh follow-up recommendations and and said approval with those four recommendations. One is on the water district resolution of annexation and Oz has had to leave but that is set for their final meeting this Friday. So that will take place and we can file the final plat after that. Uh and so they will have their meeting and they'll vote on it and then they will file the document accordingly. So that's that's fine. The other one is is any bonding of unfinished water. The only thing not completed is a small pump station. we need to provide to get the water pressure over to lot four. And we have that prepared for your next county commission meeting. We actually had it prepared today and we've got that. It's about $44,000. So So it's ready to rock if if we approve this today. U the other two I don't have the staff report.

The other one was the um secondary emergency access which you were it was almost finished but it wasn't quite done when we started. The road has been built all along. and we moved it in one area to stay off a private lot. We have an easement prepared if you want us to file that. We since it's in a green space, we didn't know if you wanted us to file it or leave it so we could uh move it as things progress. We can do it either way because it's a private easement.

So, we have the document prepared so we could file that as well. The last thing is the exception for the road length and grade. The length of the culde-sac exceeds the ordinance. So, we built we built the road that goes on out connects in with the other area. If you look at your map, here's the culde-sac. Here's the road that's built out to the main road system. So, it services lot four and then continues down to the main road system. That's that solid line. Okay. And then the culde-sac is right here and the 15% is between the tank lot and the culde-sac. Um the other thing is on the water the uh the ordinance requires a 1,200 gallon a minute on a water system when you're on a water system that's public system. This red dot right here is a hydrant. There's a 400 foot radius around it. And the ordinance calls for 400 ft from a hydrant and that's what we have to three of the lots. I again say that these three lots were already approved and they share a well. Now, we're just offering them water and we built the curtain stops to those lots if they if they choose to meter into it. Okay. So, the we're putting a pump station to lot four. It will only have potable water. So, the hydrant will service those three lots but not the fourth lot. So, we're we come in palms up and say this is what we're doing. the water district, sanitary district did the design and approved the design and improved the installation. So, they're on board with having that water system that way. I know there's conversations with the fire fire district and they say they have 400 ft of hose from that hydrant that can service that. So, so they have the water and the road issues. Tried to cover that quickly and not go to the busy maps.

So Randy, these lots you're talking about, the existing and the proposed, they were never part of the adjacent PV for Dear Mountain. Is that fair? Just to kind of keep that clear for everybody. The three existing lots were not, and we've added some acreage in those areas that are in that boundary, but they're not part of the PUD. And planning and zoning advised us to meet the park forest recommendations and density because that's what the other three primary lots in the m most of the acreage was in. And so to the extent that the hydrants and so forth are there, that's probably only to the PUB and the development of that but but happens to be in proximity to these other lots. Is that fair as well?

Yes. You know, we put the extra hydrant in up at the at the tank farm because we are creating a new lot there. And so the two houses that are there, they originally uh there's a driveway, as I'll call it, down to the uh Summit Road. Summit Road, right? The BLM has said that that that has not transferred among successive owners. So they are going to obliterate it at some point. Is that fair to you? Well, the the thing is that this lot never had a permit for that. It was only to the parent property. So both of those lots when they sold they lost that license, too. So there's been three sales. So that license is no longer valid. So they don't want to renew it. So it's in a reclaim mode right now.

And I think we have a picture of this. I don't know. That's helpful. So now the two existing lots with the ones with houses, they're going to have to use that steep driveway, I'll call it, that parallels the summit road, right? And that would also be the access for the third lot without a house and then the additional lot that you're proposing. Is that fair?

Yes. Yeah. It's the culde-sac services the demarcation point where the driveways come off of it. And so it's that road that you would uh ask for a variance on on the length of the culde-sac and then also for the steepness. Right. Yeah. And and is this helpful? I'm just kind of walking through it. And and then so you would argue that the s that the ordinance allows for variations for the steepness for short stretches. And this would be what like quarter a mile or so. No, the the stretch of the 15% is about two or 30 hundred feet. But there is some 13% on that same road. And the ordinance says small stretches of 12 to 14. We're exceeding the 14.

And then again, the two existing home owners are now going to have to use this already. So at most you're adding maybe two more residences on there. Well, there's there's three lots back there. So, but you two new houses we would add. Two new building permits. And the and the thing is if the plat isn't approved, they're still going to use this drive. That's the only one one they'll have. If I may. And so then um regarding the length of the culde-sac, you said you put in this road which would be the emergency access, right? But then there would also be theoretically that that same access that was going to be removed by the BLM. Would that be fair in an emergency situation? Well, even when this is reclaimed,

if you really had to, you could drive out on it because the bed the bed will be I mean the grading will be there and it's flat so you could get out that way if you had to. Is it also true that that on the Terry Peak side that there's also potentially other accesses? Now, these are not all weather accesses, but there would be a number of other possibilities to get out if there was fire. Well, if you look at the the north lot, which is VJ3, the Summit Road actually touches that lot. It's just really steep to get there, and you couldn't build a driveway that's as nice as the one we've built to get to all four lots. Bruce, I think you're referencing. He's referencing this road. Gemini.

Oh, yeah. Yeah, there's that's why I show that is it connects in the primary road system within the development and then they have that the existing approach off the summit. So that they used an existing approach and the road was all is also used to access the water source and it connects down here. The beauty of this easement is periodically we have a big water line easement in there that has the two main water lines. one that feeds the tank and the other that comes down and distributes and they have access through that road to service those water lines. So that's another good reason to have that road in there and that's why it was originally built anyway was to service that water.

If I ask one one more question. So this new road that services not only the water tank but also would serve the residences. Would you ever put a a gate there at that entrance so that because there would be no reason for people to be going up there would there be? Well, if you go back to the highway superintendent's recommendation, he wants a sign there that say you're at your own risk with emergency services. Basically, it's in his report. Um, we could gate this as part of the gated community because it's a private access easement. But I would suggest that we would probably not gate it till after the tank, okay?

Because they can go go in and out of there and the tank's already fenced. So, that'd be a double gate for the water. So if you put it, you'd put it uphill, but it also it also serves as a road to get in, maintain the ski area. So So down below it, there's a parallel area that that the uh groomers go on and it's connects those upper ski areas. So there's another level place in there. And that's why we put the new road into the tank on the west side is to stay out of the way of the skiers. I think I bring it up because to uh keep people out of there that ought not to be there with that steepness of the road, right? So that you know if you have a house up there, you knowly go up there, but yeah.

And currently when the contractor's not there, we put the split rails over that approach. Any further questions for um I did have one other option thing to bring up. the fire plan is completed on the uh part portions of block A and the three lots would be exempt because it's a lot line revision but there was a fire plan at that time when they were approved that was completed

you don't have one in Hey, what's your book? Amy and Jeff for helping me to understand this a little bit better and for Randy as well process. Well, I've heard the presentation twice and it's still but appears to appears to clean up a good a big problem that BLM agreed.

So there there are a number of exemptions but maybe the two primary ones just to help the discussion I think are the steepness of the road and the length of the culac. Uh so if you can address those the other ones maybe fall because that would be the but the signage and then ultimately it will get incorporated into the sanitary district we water district everyation of that. So you probably not to oversimplify are down to two things the the road length and the steepness two houses there. There's already another existing lot. So they're doing a lot line adjustment there and add another lot. So you're looking at four total houses up there as presented ultimately. this dead road.

This came out of planning and zoning. Um, one of the other members said, "What's the magic or didn't use those terms behind the length of the culdeac?" I mean, where did that come from? Is is there a particular reason that a 800 foot culac? Well, when we redid the subdivision or at that time it was remember we worked with interstate engineering looked at lengths of things for like just the fire safety and also water. That was kind of how it came about was based on some of those things from the engineering side because we did change it was actually different than it was this last time.

Commissioner, you had your hand. I did. I'm having a blank uh train. Correct. So, well, I had it and then I started glossing over again. U so to do this the right way, we should acknowledge if we decide to approve this, we need we should acknowledge and approve the exceptions to the ordinance to include the culde-sac length and the grade. I think you actually have two three things. You have the culde-sac blank, the road grade, and the allowance of potable water only to lot four. Lot four. Okay. Those would be the three exceptions.

And then the requirement possibly of the signage, which not exactly an exception. Sure. And then but that culde-sac does have an emergency egress out of it. So the culde-sac blank in my mind is really not the issue, but but I get it. It's still not meeting the ordinance. There may be up to maybe four different ways out of there. Is that fair, Randy? Yeah, that's probably fair. Three at least. Three at least. Again, not all just for full disclosure. Clearly, I saw not all all season long. One one nay the rest.

Yeah. I don't have an updated but yes it was there was one yeah it was Jenny's trying to figure it all out awake okay this is a tough crowd would sleepness uh make a difference on that would for fire steepness for part of the road.

I'm just trying to remember too looking at some of the other roads out there. I don't know that there aren't other roads that are very close in steepness that you go improvement to say that they're equal or that one thing needs to be sure through another. But just in contexting things as we were out driving around, is that fair, Randy? I mean I Well, we we Mr. determined we did have some roads within the development that were this steep for short stretches that are big.

Um I like John Bay's recommendation of signage. That's what Kuster County is doing. And uh and since this only really services one new lot, that's another part because uh no matter what we do, these lots will be using that road. Can a fire truck get up there in some cases? Yes. in some cases and and they did speak to the fire department.

Well, I I too have heard the presentation on this place plus a tutoring session from Amber. What it kind of decided what it boils down to me is is what is our role for personal safety. Um it's a essentially it's a private driveway. Um, if people want to drive up a steep long driveway, that should be their their choice. But on the other hand, there's three lots in here that that will have access, neat access on this is our role as a commission to make sure that that we're protecting them from their own questionable choices and and making sure that we can get emergency services up there. So, um, this discussion with a friend of mine this morning about personal risk. It's it's people aren't accepting a personal risk anymore, a personal responsibility and and they're relying on on government agencies such as this to protect it. So that's that's where I'm struggling with this this whole thing.

You see how government protects people in New York here. No, I I think people need to have certain amount of responsibility upon themselves and if they're going to purchase this and That's on them. I can't make a motion. I thought Commissioner Figan was ready. You stalled. I got talked over the top of and I forgot what my motion was going to be. So, I wrote down I'll let you guys figure it out.

You recommend recommended that I recommended approval of the preliminary and final plat or with the exceptions of the culde-sac length the road grade with the short distances of 12 to 14%. Um and then specifically with this one there is a short stretch over 14 and then the potable water only a lot four that would just be the exception. Watch your sign in there too. Nope, that wouldn't be an exception. That would be the next I make a motion to approve the preliminary final plaque with the exception is approved. Okay.

And the need for a sign that states or text the public letting them know it's a state and with the to follow the recommendation of recording listed in here. I don't want to list all those out because she's already gotten, but that's that we still need the water system agreement needs to be recorded, which I know they're working on. The sanitary district agreement, which again, that'll come on Friday. Um, to follow all staff recommendations as printed in our document. Perfect. All right, we have a motion. I'm going to second it for further discussion. Yeah, Mr. Yes,

I don't know if this matters, but so as Randy alluded to earlier, so if you approve this at your next meeting, you'll probably see a memorandum of agreement and an engineers estimate correct for the improvement. Is that fair? Yeah, it's already been submitted. Yeah, it's in it's in the language. So, but it's it would be coming up. We have it ready today if you want to consider it today. I I think that steepness ought to enter ought to enter into this more than it seems to that what steepness ought to enter into more than it needs than it is. Okay. Further discussion.

All those in favor of the motion will say I. Brenda. Let's do a roll call, please. N. Hi sweet. Hey. All right. Hi. Me too. Okay.

I'm on like five of them. Mr. Chairman, this is going to take the whole day. If I can help. The rest of them aren't too bad. Will they delay lunch for us? I got to drive to you. Christmas party. Oh, yeah. We're slow down. Correct.

Okay. This one is also Dear Mountain. Um this one the owner is wishing to combine lots within block 8 village. The lots are being out of the original preliminary plan that were located in block A. We will lower the density and there currently no infrastructure on any of the lots. Um the lots will have primary access onto Golden Drive that links to cabin road with secondary access on Birch Drive through gate for emergency purposes only. Water is being provided by the Deer Mountain Sanitary District and each lot will have its own septic. There was a bond in place for the water that was approved to be released as the infrastructure was done and it was um released in November of 2024. The fire plan has been fully mitigated and there was a letter that we already received. So, this one is just basically combining some of the lots. Um everything else is is in effect. It was um motion to approve by planning.

Motion to call recommendation. Second motion by planning and second by Tisdale. Follow recommendation. All those in favor of the motion say I opposed. Okay.

Um, Dear Mountain 27R and 28R1. This was also owners wishing to do a lot line adjustment between the two lots. There are lots being combined out of the original preliminary plat. Currently, no infrastructure on the lots. Revised preliminary was approved in 2023. Access comes off of Terry Peak Summit Road water being thrown district. Each lot will have their own septic. Um bond was released in November of 2024. Fire plan has been litigated. It's a final only because the final second.

Okay. Motion by Jenny second to approve the final. Any further discussion? Seeing not all the motion say I. I I carried

92 K development one um owner to break 1.36 lot out of 84 acres of block A was originally approved 2023 lot since then there's been infrastructure which requires it still the density of the Walkary access drive road sanitary district was released motion follow recommendation for approval

second approval. All those in favor of the motion will say I. That went way too fast. Okay. I wanted to slow you down so you didn't make lunch.

Okay. Next one is um Incorporated. What they're doing with this one is they'd like to plat off a portion of the property that is lying north of I90. Um the basically the interstate cuts this parcel maybe on both sides of the interstate and the neighboring owner who actually owns land in me county that's the but the county line runs right along this would like to buy this portion on the other side of do that it's never been platted um and so we've done this before where since it does get broken off we allow that less than 40 to happen and especially because or any county would like to purchase it to go part of his overall paper. Um, so it's a preliminary and a final plot and it was we did not require a fire plan. If you remember, we had written that into it that when it's open lands like this, there's nothing there. We didn't as staff I could say that it didn't need it. Um, so that's what we did. Uh, looks like it ended up passing, but did vote against it and I don't remember know why.

Four yays and one nay and the nay was more or less to do with spraying for weeds I think. Oh, that's you're right. It was it was the weed the buyer has agreed to to do that since the last time. Okay. that that was because the um Dave Hec had suggested that they do some work and normally we just recognize that and then Dave would go forward with his but that's it. So that's good to approve and final second motion by James second by Tisdale for approval. All those in favor of the motion will say I opposed. Motion carried.

Thank you. Thank you. Um Mountain View Ranches and Northwest Enter. So if you remember you guys approved the updated um boundary map for um Northwest which is the what am I thinking? Centennial Corey for the Centennial Corey. You approved that change. So with that change this is the final flat. So they approved we approved a preliminary pat based on that last time. Now they're just coming forward with the final and it does match the preliminary approved to approve. Do we need to do exactly? Um

no I don't think I do have it on there but you did do it as part of the preliminary. So why don't you do it? I'll second a second by all those in favor. Further discussion. Yeah, I was wondering why you don't require them to spray the weeds and take care of the weeds before you okay the plots. I'm not going to answer that because that was your guys's decision to go forward the way you have. So that's up to this board. All right. Well, you answer you guys answered that. They'll take care of your weeds before you okay them to do things otherwise they don't do it

because we don't have an ordinance supporting that an ordinance supporting what the we why didn't you make one that's why we have the weed it sounds like they got that taken care of though this was the only plaque that didn't have a management plan for weeds that we dealt with oh my part of the issue here was too with the the neighboring it was right on the B county Fine. Mhm. It sounds like the land owner is has been made aware of it and I think it was molding a can of thistle if I remember right. He's going to spray that. Okay.

Well, it's whatever you want to do, but I don't think you should do it that way. That's the deal there cuz uh we got plent plenty of weeds and we got some next weeds on the property next to ours and and they didn't allow him to rent it until he sprayed the weeds and that's the way it should be. Oh, go ahead. He every month we receive a report and he gets the list of the land owners and then he's been he's been busy between the two of them. They've been going and talking to the land owners. So his work

okay two years ago those reports never had management plan. Now they almost done very proactive. Yep. All those in favor of the motion will say I. Opposed. Motion carried.

So the next one is for Kissic Water and Oil Services. Um you guys have seen this before. We we kind of brought you I think a couple months ago. Um so this is Heritage Hills subdivision. Originally when you did this subdivision, there was a lot of discussion about roads and kind of what was going to happen with it. But um so at that time they just said, "Okay, we'll just go ahead and get the build the roads built as approved." and they left that upper chunk alone. Um, and since then now the roads are all in. It has the loop road, so it comes off the road and comes back out. Um, they have an agreement with the neighboring land owner, so the road got built over his property and there's an agreement in place, so he comes through there now. And so the upper part they're looking at subdividing it into three lots and each of those will have a driveway off of it instead of having that other roof way back up in there which just wasn't meeting the requirements. So this way they can just do a driveway. Um the fire plan was written. It's in place but there's discussion within that fire plan that basically states depending on where house is built is what would need to be done. So, if they build on the lower part, it would be okay. But if for some reason they decide to put a crazy driveway up, then they're gonna have to do a specific fire plan up in that upper. Um, so we won't know. We've had fire plans written like that before. We just keep them. So, our office keeps track of those via a layer on GIS. So, every time the fire plan is issued, so then when someone comes in for a building permit, they can choose that layer and it's like, "Oh, wait. There's a fire plan on this." and then they go back and hold what did it say. So that's kind of how we deal with that.

Yep. The fire plan layer has helped tremendously. We built that. I think um Brett finished it maybe a year and a half ago. So we we went back and pulled all the fire plans and now they're all layered. So it colors it in. I think it's pink or something. So it just is a good reminder of oh wait, there was a fire plan on this. Okay. You allow them to go ahead and change a date too. There is no This is just a plate. The zoning is already there. Okay. Yeah. The you guys redid the zoning two years ago probably.

Yeah. It's been a long time. They This is just the last of the plats. So, this will be the remainder there. Every other plat has been done now. This is the last of it. Move to approve the primary final. Second. Okay. Motion by Flanigan, second by Tesdale for approval of as well as final. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion will say I. I. Opposed. Motion carried. Thank you guys. You sorry you had to wait long. Good. Good seeing you. This is the longest I've spent with him in a year. It's great. He's dying. Oh, okay.

Thank you guys. Thank you. Merry Christmas to you. Thanks,

um, next one. 96. Is that for Yes, sir. Um, MJ Legacy and Mike Glimmer. This is lot 7, Black Wilderness Estate, second edition. This one is the owner wishing to combine the two lots into one. Property is currently zone PU beach um has a residence on it. Full utilities on both roads to the area as house pass. There is a fire plan in place. If you look basically the structure doesn't need setback. Therefore, he purchased the neighboring lot. So, it's nice when they Yeah. Yeah. So, now it's it'll take care of the issues with that. The preliminary final second. Okay. Second by Jennings for approval. All those in favor of the motion will say I.

I. Opposed car Bucker and family trust.

Um this one. Yeah. So this one is uh the owner of lot 33A is purchasing land from the adjacent landowner to be able to build a new garage. This will allow the new garage to meet all the setbacks. They're currently in is a residence with infrastructure on the lot. Residents on the preliminary plat appears to be inside the setback, but it is not put for. There's no infrastructure or improvements on lot 2A. The plat is exempt for lot revision. So you just do you have to do the exempt and then approve the need for exempt

motion. Motion second for fire plan exemption. All those in favor of the motion say I I carried and then you got preliminary. Motion to approve the preliminary final. Jeez. Second. Okay. Motion by seconded by Jennings to approve the final. All those in favor of the motion will say I. I. Opposed. Motion carried Hills.

Subdivision was created in 2005. has an HA community water system and septic resolution applied a lot on that subdivision subdivision plan within their covenant. It's one of those old ones that we just had them within the covenants. Um fire specialist the lot will basically have mitigation done during the building process. So for the most part when we start tearing down trees to put the house in that's going to take care of the problem. Um, so the occupancy certificate would not be issued until the fire specialist has reed once the structure is up, which we have done that in the past as well. Says says on there that the fire plan is needed. Yeah. Did you say you did that?

Nope. I just said that they would like to do it as part of the building process because when they start taking trees down, it'll kind of take care of itself. So before the occupancy permit is done, they will have they will have a re-review done by the mitigation person to say is there anything else that needs to be completed? Thank you. So you would recommend approval of the final plat as it matches the approved preliminary plat and then I believe we had a note added just like more of a note stating the occupancy certificate. We would need that re-review. So moved. Okay. Motion by planning and seconded by approval. All those in favor of the motion say

I your oppos. All right. David Niels.

Okay. Um this one is coming about U. Mr. Nielsen unexpectedly passed away. So the state is trying to deal with some of the issues out there. And this is it's really hard to see unless you can really zoom in on it, but basically there's a there's multiple residences on this property. There's one of them that they are looking to transfer to the person I believe that's living in that house now. Um and to do that, they're fixing they're kind of redoing that lot a little bit to kind of help give it a little bit more acreage. Um so it's just a lot line revision really. Um and they are it's surrounded by Forest Service government. There's flood plane on it. It really doesn't change anything. We're saying that it's exempt because it's just adding acreage to a little

No, not very just enough. I think it was more so of just structure-wise making sure the structures are all on there. Okay. consent exemption for fire plan. Second. Okay. Motion by Jenny, second by Tisdell for exempt. All those in favor of the motion will say I. Opposed. Motion carried.

Move to approve the preliminary final. I'll second it. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion will say I. Opposed carried I think I'm done. Just so you know, I think we're gonna have Maybe I don't know.

Let's take a break. Oh, flight. Please say marathon session.

Greetings gentlemen, lady and gentlemen. Happy Tuesday.

Well, thank you for the opportunity to just give you an update this morning on a few things. One of those is actually request permission to sign an ANOU, but um and that'd be the first item on the on the list here. So, I'm not sure if you're familiar with it, uh but it's a a uh organization within the state called Secure SD, Secure South Dakota, and uh it was created as a uh result of SB187, which is a cyber security improvement initiative within South Dakota. Um and uh that organization has been charged with the oversight of about 7 million well $7 million worth of funding for municipalities and counties within the state. Um and uh I've been fortunate I've been involved in this initiative for quite a few years and and I'm one of the advisory council members for for for this uh committee. And uh in order to participate in the grant funding uh you have to do an MOU with secure out South Dakota meet some requirements and it's it's pretty boilerplate but um so I'm coming coming to you today with uh the request to to sign thatou because there's a couple of grant opportunities I'd like to try to take advantage of uh next year. Um one of those is uh we have you know all kinds of technologies that are that are doing things security related. Um, we have some that I'd like to replace. Uh, and if we can do it, we can actually do it at a at a zero net cost difference. Uh, and have a more holistic view of our, uh, infrastructure. Um, but we might be able to get either in fuller or part in full of that solution paid for through grant uh, through secure SD. Um, I've seen a lot of requests come through uh in that uh organization so far and I think I think our our technology that we're would be proposing marries up really

well with that program. Some things that have been requested don't necessarily line up with specifically security maybe some technology upgrades that might improve security but that's not security related. What I'm looking for is uh security events and incidents that that would happen within an organization and getting visibility correlated visibility within the organization but also interface with some of our um managed detection response solutions. So um so that's what theou is for and uh I said we'll be requesting to uh have chair sign that so we could put in a grant request next year in the packets. So we want to approve this unaware to sign.

Yes sir. Yes sir. Motion by second by Jennings for approval. All those in favor of the motion will say I. I car. Thank you very much. I will keep you uh uh posted on that uh grant application. You know bring that to your uh attention once we get that done so you can see the parameters of what that would involve. Um right now there's no uh specific match required. We can submit for the whole grant and we uh the full amount and then either in part or in full be able to be awarded. So

yeah be nice to be able to save a little money. So um the next option or next item I want to talk about is uh you know is also security related. So I won't get into too many details go through specific technologies things like that because it's you know sensitive. But um we have a variety of of disaster recovery and backup solutions that we utilize. Um specific to the the disaster recovery, uh we've had had one in place for a couple years that has worked, but it has not been doing things as well as it could. In addition, it is not handling just our back uh our backup as well. We have a separate solutions for backup. I have an opportunity to be able to uh combine those two. So, it's uh they're working together better. So, how this how this plays out is we have um equipment on on prem that uh we back up all of our systems both at the file level and uh full systems. Once that's backed up to our local hardware, which we have similar situations now, but it also puts it into a cloud environment, which we're also doing, but it's not tied into backup. So, we have the ability to with this new solution run our environment from the local hardware. So, say we have a server or an entire host that fails, we can actually run our systems off the local device. or if we're having a major outage on site, we can actually run our same systems from the cloud either here or anywhere else we designate. So, it gives us the ability to continue operating during severe failure and this solution works much better in that respect. It also allows us to be able to have multiple types of backups but using the one solution. So we can have local backup on disk, cloud backup

as well as airgapped backups uh which we have on removable media that we keep off site here. Um what's nice about uh this in addition to that is we have the ability to save some money and because we're combining some solutions uh but still being able to diversify our types of disaster recovery and backup uh types. um there's certain types of hardware support we don't have to pay for for other technologies for duplicate technologies. So over the span of about uh 3 years we we should save somewhere about $27,000 on what we're paying already. So um I just wanted to bring that to your attention that that's something we're working on right now and uh trying to get implemented before the end of the year. U it is a budgeted item and so we we should come in under under budget from what we've had before. So I think we're in in in good shape. This is just information

information for so you understand what we're working on where the money is going to. Well, thank you for saving. Yeah. Making every effort when we can and making the system better as well. Well, and you know, there's such a reliance, you know, every office here is just relying on our systems to work and so we're trying to do the best we can to keep them available. So, so making the redundancy more effective and efficient. It is. Yes. as as well as uh being able to to consolidate our diversity if that makes sense. Yeah. All right. Any questions?

I have one more one more item too and that's about this room and your your your audiovisisual stuff for your meetings. Um there's been a lot of discussion, you know, uh over the past, you know, few months. And um Bruce and I have had some discussions about what might work best for both for you to be able to utilize as well as those who are connected to your to your meetings. And so, um, what I'm proposing that we do is, uh, you know, Bruce has been using his laptop, which we can continue to allow someone to bring in a laptop to connect to to the AV system, but to have a dedicated machine that's that's wired into the system so that um, you know, you have a monitor and keyboard, but a small mini machine underneath the table that's the monitor can be moved, keyboard can be moved. Um, so that is something that would stay here. it wouldn't it wouldn't be moved. The connections wouldn't be uh

disconnected and connected, which has been a problem because then we have connections that wear out. And I think that's what happened with Bruce versus laptop on one of his USB ports. So, we have that here. Uh replacing uh the cameras with a high quality camera. Uh you can decide if you want to have more than one. Right now, we have we've had two. One of them has got issues, but we've had two. So, you can aim them whichever direction you want. Um, we can set it if you wanted it to to zoom into who's talking or just have it static. Um, if we have it static, there's less chances of for it to have issues. Um, a single uh high gain microphone in the ceiling. Uh, we could we can still utilize our speaker system, but uh the the PC instead of using Bluetooth will be hardwired to the the amplifier, so we probably have less issues with connecting to that. And we still have the Bluetooth available if someone brings a laptop in. Um,

yep. T's are on the list, too. So, and this is kind of a decision that I wanted to kind of ask the board what you think. You know, right now you got two TVs that are replicated uh on a wall here, but you see either the people that are connected to the meeting or you see the the paperwork that's up. You don't see both. So, the proposal is to add another two TVs in here. So, you can basically have two screens to split that between. And uh we could either go with some smaller TVs. I I right now the 70in TVs I've I I've looked because that's what those are right now. Uh or about 500 a piece give or take. Um if you want to try to have some smaller ones mounted side by side or one above the other. I don't know if the board has any preferences about what they'd like to see with regards to displays. Um so I'd like, you know, get your input on on that before we would take any move in that direction. seemed to me that it' be beneficial for the chair if they had the screen of who was on it that display in the back. Okay. Because it can be hard to see this the angle is able to get this.

So, and we and Bruce and I have had some discussions on this. If we can get one that's sized enough that's in and out of the way so people that are, you know, standing in the back wouldn't be sticking out too far. So, we can do something like that without We can certainly get rid of that clock because it's never right anyway. So, that's a good point. And then just so basically one one of the pair you have this here and then one pair over here. Would you want to do just the one or would you want to have another one over on this side? You'd have to get smaller TVs to have two of them over there to be for it to work. How is it for the audience to see? Can you see these screens fairly well?

So if I may. So, we're talking about originally two TVs there, two TVs there. Now, I'm hearing maybe two TVs there split with the paperwork on this wall and who's in the room over there. So, there would be still four TVs, four TVs, two married up on this wall, but then split on these walls. So, I'm not following why we need two TVs on here. If we have a display back here with who's on it, shouldn't we just need one TV on each side or We can do that. We can have just these split for one and that and the other second monitor be over here. We could do that. So that would be the attendees and this would be the information. Yes. Or whichever way you wanted it to be. You know, you move move the data over. Yeah.

I think the thought was is that depending on where you're sitting at, you can look just kind of how it is now, right? Okay. We have to try to spend it by the end of the year. We have that 100,000 in your contingency. So, we'd have to get started. I'm estimating about 3300 for everything. Uh, and we can our team would do the implementation. There wouldn't be necessarily labor, but um we just get the we get the equipment on hand. Yeah. Before the end of the year.

My suggestion would be to do one back there that only always has that on it. We get single regular resolution cameras just like these are now and the computer to set it up that way and then these would switch to whatever is put onto the board but that one would always stay so you can see who it is and if you want to see that one all of us can turn there and see that and what you're talking about you talk about dual cameras then just same we got okay just same same kind of concept I don't know that we need to zoom in okay because that that actually I'm not pretty in person I certainly don't need anything zooming Yeah. So that'll that'll cut the cost of the cameras and buying just one TV instead of two should get us well under what we've estimated here for the the equipment. I think that's

very large back there. Yeah. Yeah. You're going to have get a flat mount and shove it up to the ceiling. Okay. The way I see it, we need I'll offer a suggestion for a motion to estimating 3,300 uh to be taken up contingency and get going on the project and I can't make I'd make a motion to spend no more than 3500 on the update from the commission's contingency. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. I opposed. really like the stationary.

Yeah, the connections not moving all the time would be very helpful. And then like for example, at least one of these microphones be it should get the whole room. That's the the hope. So yeah, you should be able to just get a little dongle that will plug into like a different laptop then go hard right right underneath and up to the still I mean for somebody else. Oh yes yes yes yes that would be yeah yeah yeah but just use your Bluetooth for for that too. So yeah

as as part of this larger discussion to facilitate it the end of the year uh would you entertain today uh making a motion to allow the contingency transfer either what to the commissioner's budget or the IS&T budget so that that that is prepared to be done. It's part of this larger discussion I think you had today. Absolutely. Thank you. Second say I thanks for working. Absolutely. I My pleasure. Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen?

I have none, but I want to take break. Sure. very much. Come on up. You can drag your chair up if you want. Thank you. The floor of the agenda benchmark project.

Yeah, thanks for allowing us to come and talk to you. I know you busy and um this is kind of a a gotcha moment for uh us in that uh just last week we learned that the forest service has been working on a project in the northern hills called the benchmark project for quite a bit of time and I actually uh Paul's the one that had mentioned it to me the forest service hadn't made any efforts to let us know or anybody you know, uh that the project is going, uh which gets back to our whole cooperative agency status and uh the willingness of the Forest Service to work with the county. So, I'm going to turn it right over to Paul and let him kind of discuss what's going on. And also, uh there is some good news. We do have a uh district ranger that's been appointed for the uh northern hills district and Paul will kind of Paul knows him I don't. So I'm gonna let Paul visit a little bit about it. Thanks Bill and thanks for the opportunity to to talk. Um so this this benchmark project um is down near benchmark. Um they're talking 40,000 acres or so of analysis. Um and it came up in a conversation with the forest supervisor I had a week ago kind of and and I had to kind of press them on what they're working on and um and so it has not been scoped yet. Has not been put out technically for public comment. Um and so I I met with the the incoming district ranger yesterday. Um, and we had a scheduled meeting. It wasn't it wasn't about this, but I I talked to him about uh Warren County Natural Resource Committee, um, Warren County Commissioners and the cooperating

agency uh, troubles we've been having. Um, so on the on the good news, um, he he's currently he lives in Spearfish, Patrick Champa. He's the Bear Lodge District Ranger. Um, he's doing a lateral transfer over to Northern Hills. Um so he will take the lead replacing Steve Cole as a permanent district ranger for us on Northern Hills. Um he did commit to me yesterday um to build a really positive relationship with the commissioners. He felt that he did that in Crook County and Weston County. um regardless of where we sit with an MLOU and official status, uh he very much wants to bring us in as a county um to to really work together.

Um shared no more details about the project with me than than that. Um, so I I think there's probably some work to do on getting communication started with with the district and um, you know, asking to be more involved even without the cooperating agency status at this point. Sounds positive for a change.

It did. It sounded very positive and that comes on the heels and and just I'll I'll make this quick, but um, you know, we have a new administration. We have a new secretary of a uh for the department of a we have a new chief. Um I heard the chief speak uh the last week of October uh at a national meeting. Uh he has a he has a plan to bring every forest supervisor in the country together for a leadership meeting with him. It was supposed to happen in mid November with the shutdown. They rescheduled it for January. And his his goal his his mission in this leadership meeting is is to communicate to every forest supervisor in the country at once that in order for the agency to meet their task their mission. He is expecting and will have we'll have um uh accountability measures in place. He's expecting every forest supervisor to lead their forest and their their line officers underneath them to build capacity through partnerships with counties, industry, NOS's and to get work done is going to take building this relationship. So the direction from the top down is very positive right right now on that. It seems still a struggle to get it through some of the four supervisors, but I think there are folks like Patrick uh who's a district ranger who understands the mission and is willing to step up and and really follow direction. So, I I think there's a really good opportunity right now to revisit this. Patrick will not be somebody who could grant the county cooperating agency status that still is above his level. Um but I think the timing is is changing again to maybe taking another another look at this.

Yeah. So

anyway, there is some good news out there. Um because we've been kind of in the black because when Steve left, Steve was fairly communicative with us and still wanted to have some relationships. So, um I think it's time for us to relook at going after our cooperative agency status uh both from a project level standpoint and then also uh reoffer uh go back the same road of uh uh requesting cooperative agency status for the forest uh like we had for five years. And uh I guess that's what I'd like to see the county commissioners take a lead on. We can do stuff through the natural resource committee to to get it going, but uh it's going to take some, you know, the initiative of the county commissioners to uh request cooperating agency status. I I think uh it would be in the light of where we're at with the other forests um what's going on in Wyoming. Uh I mean that the county commissioners and the the forests the different forests in the in Wyoming are falling over each other to work with each other and there's really great examples out there. the really only the big the the bad example unfortunately for neat region two is right here the Black Hills and that goes right back to the leadership and so um but I think it's it's coming from the top down like Paul said that we can make some changes. I think he's going to whether he likes it or not, there's going to have to be some changes made at that at the supervisor's level as far as being able to work with the forest. So, um I wanted to uh Mitch uh couldn't make the meeting here in person, but I'd like to have him

talk about a little bit about what's going on with the meeting he went to in Wyoming. And I just I just want to tell you we aren't paying Mitch anything for you know the local stuff here but he's doing a great job and I am so fortunate to have him on our our our committee because he's been very very helpful. So uh he learned a lot and he did some uh oh meeting with some folks out of uh the regional office and the different forests over in Wyoming. at that meeting he was allowed to attend which I think will benefit us long term. So Mitch, you want to go ahead. You're Mitch, you're on. Yeah, still muted. Mitch, I did get your travel request. I submitted it for payment. So it'll be paid on the 23rd.

We're not here. There we go. Can't hear you. Try not

can't hear you. Mitch, where's Greg? It's probably on our end there. Mitch, hang on.

We can't hear you. So, Bruce is looking into it here. Um, we'll we'll go ahead with some other things as long as uh we're waiting for Mitch. Um, I don't know if everybody's heard, but there's no longer a Black Hills Forest Advisory Board. Uh, that was squaltched. And I don't know whether that came from the bottom up from uh what was going on with the our supervisor. Uh, I know he was trying to make the meetings bimonthly and and uh I mean he was pretty much trying to phase it out as it was but my understanding it's no longer part of the correct

for us. So, uh, have you guys heard anything about why I was meeting with supervisor yesterday and his his response was that that was from the administration that they're dealing doing away with all of the NFABs. Uh, I didn't know that there was that many infabs across the country. I think we were I think we were the only one, but Well, that was kind of what I remember. Yes. Yes. Yeah, I heard the same message. There was two. There was um Yes. Yeah. I I heard the same thing. I I don't I have no reason to think he was lying to us.

You know, I could see the administration maybe doing that. I I don't know the exact It seemed contrary to what the other messaging was of working with the public and with other agencies.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, I was just going to say not not to go back, but I didn't even tell Bill this, but um I there was a request actually from the chief's office. Um they're they're aware the chief's office is aware of the struggles that Orange County has been having on this forest getting cooperating agency status. Um and there's a request that if there's anything in writing that we could share with them documenting that stuff, they would sure love to know. uh where we're at with it. Well, we got plenty of that more sold than what this timeline I think this was pretty Yeah.

I wasation of Senator's office yesterday and they made the same request. And can you hear me, Bruce? Yes. Okay. So, it's it's got to be on the other end. Okay. Thank you. Absolutely. Bruce typically if he logs out logs back in has his mic on when he does it. Yeah. Mitch, can you try logging in and out again, please? Bruce, he might be able to change his settings or if he wants to just call in. Yeah. Mitch, if you can hear us, want to call my cell phone?

Wait, if you can hear us, Mitch, I can hear you. Mitch, can you hear us? Yeah, he's got your phone ring in there. It's because you guys are all calling at the same same time. We're gonna put my phone on the table and you can talk to these guys through my phone. Okay. Sounds good. Do you want me to start right now?

Yeah. Okay. Well, um first of all, with the cooperating agency status, um the forest itself has raised some legal issues in the past which we addressed. um they don't agree with us, but I did at the conference in uh Buffalo, Wyoming, I was able to talk to several uh high level environmental attorneys and ran Lawrence County's uh uh legal concerns by them and they completely agreed with with Lawrence County and said the Forest uh service is completely wrong on those. Uh essentially it has to do with sharing information and um the federal advisory committee act restricting cooperating agency status. So, um, that's three attorneys that have weighed in just through, uh, casual conversations with us that say, you know, we are in solid legal footing with what we're requesting and the forest is is wrong on that. So, that was a good outcome with that meeting. The other thing that um is going on is the um they brought up a lot of good examples as Bill alluded to, but um Wyoming, the state of Wyoming and the counties are pushing hard at the Washington office level about the Black Hills National Forest and they're really frustrated even more so than Lawrence county or any of any of the counties in the Black Hills. So, there's a very uh keen awareness of the

problems on the Black Hills. Um the groups that met there in Buffalo, I was really surprised to learn that they they had heard about it some of the problems and were very aware of it. So, um something may change out of that. And kind of an example, I just want to real quickly state what's going on with the force supervisor is that he's delaying information, holding it back. And just an example, he had hired a engagement coordinator to work with the forest plan revision to work with stakeholders and the public. And we nobody's heard about it. And this I just happened to meet this the contractor from the University of Wyoming at this Buffalo meeting. She told me what she was doing and she knew very little about what had gone on. So I filled her in and that's just kind of an example of kind of how we're operating in the dark and it's it's very detrimental. Um, one other thing that the forest is going to keep harping on is the special expertise. um that's required for cooperating agencies. And so with that, I think it's important that the natural resource committee has um members that have a variety of of backgrounds, whether that's that's in range or timber or watershed or um GIS, whatever. um it's important to meet that special expertise requirement. So that's the gist of of what I had to

say. Um except I'll close with this that we've got a good chronology and timeline of what we've tried to do to get the cooperating agency status reestablished, renewed. And um I I think we should push that. And I I also wonder if we shouldn't maybe push this a little through um the state as well by going through Hunter Roberts um whether that's just through conversations or um letters, whatever the county deems appropriate. But I think uh Hunter has access to the governor and I don't know how you all feel about that. But I do know that Hunter is very very frustrated as well. So I'll close with that unless you have any questions.

All right. Yeah. Thanks Mitch. Um, one one I don't know if this is a Mitch question or you guys. I was asked yesterday how many if there any other counties in the Black Hills that have have had cooperative agency status with the board service. I didn't think there was. Has anybody else applied over the years? Yeah. Well, all of them have applied and have it with the Black Hills National Forest for the Black Hills forest plan revision. The revision. Yeah. But none of them had cooperative agency agreements like Lawrence County had that would encompass all of the management projects. No. Okay. That's what I was thinking. But I wanted to make sure I have that right. But there are bunches of them in Wyoming. Yeah. Of of counties.

Yeah. Of counties. And Wyoming is not the only I mean Idaho's got them. Even Utah's got them. In other forest. Yeah. Yes. I mean we aren't the only ones in the whole forest doing what we're doing, right? Did anyone have any questions? hang up. Mr. D or Senator D. I had a comment on Commissioner Jennings question when when you're ready. Okay. Is there are we done with Mitch? So, he can go on this date. Thank you, Mitch.

Thank you. Um, so I I getting back to uh Mitch's comments, I think that the timing is right to do this to to go back after this. We kind of been uh settled back waiting the hopefully something would come from the quarterly meetings that Eric had had, which nothing really came from that. um we need to go forward trying to get a cooperative agency status and I think there's going to be support from the chief the region all the way down. Uh and if we can get the state to help us on this. I think the the state's really frustrated with their relationship uh especially with the LAR situation. I I'm sure all you guys knew what happened with the LAR. They sent us the wrong stuff. I think almost intentionally and we never were able to use that. He's the the force still holding that LAR hostage and not allowing anybody use it. Um so and I I think Mitch is right about the uh our as we go forward right now with our with the Black Hills forest plan and everything. Uh I would really like to see us expand our natural resource committee. Uh we've got some uh good applicants out there and I'd like to have you guys consider them and and bring them on again. So um

we'll have that discussion first meeting. Yeah. So um that's really all I have. I appreciate you guys' time. Uh this isn't fun for me. I I I like you guys, but I don't like coming up here. And I I hate doing this over and over and over. And uh I've been through this many over almost three decades now and we have gone backwards on this. We are probably at the worst situation in 30 years right now that I've seen and it all gets back to the leadership. You're blaming this board?

No, I'm not blaming this board. I'm blaming the leadership of the Black Hills National Forest. Yep. Just let me clarify. No, no, Commissioner D or God. That's all right. Senator,

well, I just wanted to add a few things. Throughout the United States, there's a lot of counties that have cooperative agency status. There's a lot of them that don't need it because they they work that way already. But the hiccup here is we've asked for it outside our jurisdiction. I don't know how many are outside their jurisdiction. and we're asking for a forestwide one. That's a significant difference in the debate that continues to go on. Um, so that I just wanted to point that out and and I don't know of any in Utah or Colorado that have outside their jurisdiction, but the county next to them works with them so closely. And then the other counties in the Black Hills, you look at Paintton County, they have a they have a full-time person doing this. He's in contact with the ranger all the time and they're buddies, right? If you look at Kuster, the district office is right up the hill. They just go up there and and people from the district office come to their commission meeting all the time. Now, that's the majority of the forest, us and those two, right? So, those relationships are unique and different. I think we need to acknowledge that. We don't have that. We're up here in an island and they want and we've got a ghost as a as a supervisor. He just doesn't show up or send somebody in instead unless he gets a congressional request. And that's that's been his MO since he's been here is like it won't return calls, won't show up, or he'll send staff instead. And that's not only dealing with the county, but dealing with the public on access permits and other things. So it's it's a common MO here. And that infuriates me. And then he constantly says, don't go over your our head. We don't have a choice in that situation, but go over their head. And I think we've paused that a little bit to give this new supervisor that opportunity. and uh and we're going nowhere. And there's always an excuse to shut down. The uh uh LAR has cultural implications we can't share. There's always an excuse to delay things.

Funding funding is Yeah. And and the funding we had $5 billion come out to the to either uh fire mitigation andor uh cooperative what's it called when you do it with the the state. Yeah. Good neighbor. neighbor authority

and our forest wasn't there asking for this money and that went to our region and they say they don't have money for staff that was their opportunity to get that staff so last year at the legislature we passed a resolution because the other excuse was socially I cannot do timber sales because the public doesn't want it. We did a resolution and all 105 legislators voted for it that we need to manage our forest the timber industry. So, we keep he keeps throwing out these roadblocks and we keep having to knock them down and that that's got to change and our congressionals are the ones that can do that. I will say that the state has a much better relationship in the county, but it's only because of Marcus communicating with with the forest. It doesn't there's no it's a closed network. It doesn't Marcus doesn't share that with the counties. And that's why Hunter is frustrated too, especially on the good neighbor authority. they'd like to implement more and justify maybe the hir hiring staff, but the there's just no avenues left. So, it's very frustrating and and I think our current governor is aware of that and he needs to act, too. And and and Hunter relies on his staff, Secretary Roberts relies on his staff and he has to. You can't completely sweep them away, but we we need to keep these people moving forward. Uh, and I think our county has led that generationally and we need to get back in that in that path. Um, I wanted to talk briefly on the natural resource committee when you look at that next month because I won't be here most likely. It's important to look at the applicants. When we had a big committee and we had the forest plan come in, who responded to each of the 21 items? Volunteers on that committee. We tried to assign some to commissioners and they didn't do anything. We did that as volunteers unpaid. That's an unpaid committee. And you want public interaction in the

county commission. You can do it through these unpaid committees. So having it small isn't necessarily good when we have another big project come the next level of the forest plan revision. We need that expertise and we assign people to do that and it worked very well. If if you don't put a person on the committee, why would they help anyone? So you don't want to narrow it down too narrow. Now you have the ability to change that periodically even after the first of the year to meet that need. But if you're shunning these the public that wants to help, wants to be engaged away, that's contrary to why you have committees. So I encourage you to look at expanding that so we have the expertise when we need it. That doesn't mean it has to meet all the time, but they're unpaid. Your a lot of your other boards are paid. So it is fully volunteer. So it doesn't matter how many you have on it financially. So, thank you.

Thank you. All right. Any other questions or anything? Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we are down to items from the public. There's anyone online or in the room that would like to address the board this morning? Sarah, I actually do have a a request. If you guys could make it more mandatory for people to state their first and last names, it would make my jobs a lot easier and I would have to send my emails.

All right. I certainly try to remember that, but we'll uh try to be well, I only have to do it today and one more meeting and then it's our next successor. But yes, we will. Thank you. Is there anyone online that would like to address the board? Not seeing anything. So, we'll close close that portion of items from the commissioners. I have an item. We need some consistency on this report stuff. We made our planning zoning director come in, give a verbal and a written.

Why aren't we requesting our John to do a verbal? Why aren't we not treating all of our department heads equally? Okay. I think we need to have a standardized process that they do policy and we stay with it. Well, that's another item we can take up first. Anything else? Well, first throw it on the agendas.

Yeah. Um I think if I may, you have the flexibility to do it. Although would you approve the travel request to name nothing was said then but I think if you want to I can let John know that that's a condition of of the approval. Is that fair? We can just add it for that one and try to catch that once the standard I don't know that forward comparing her verbal report to her written report. the written report. They're both very good and I could have gotten by just fine with the written report. But whatever the rest of commission wants to, I'm happy with it. We need to standardize it because we picked on a woman.

Maybe in John's case, uh, should I convey him a written report or um or oral report? What's everybody want? I just going to have it written so we can have that to refer back and then if we have questions, we can ask them. Well, unlike his case, he's going to give us an update verbally as well. He will every department should have the same the same uh qualifications and every time they come in and and report from a a conference they've been I learned something too that Oh, yeah. that I can do a better job as a commissioner. Okay, Brush, you got it on for next time. I'm just I I propose just to add it and let John know and he'll do it. Is that fair? Well, but if you want to

you have discretion to do it. We just need to remember to to put it as part of the motion. Well, we don't want to have to remember to do it every time. We want it to be part of the travel request. Yeah, that they report back. So, put it on the agenda. That's what I intended it to be a part of the travel request there last time when I made that because everybody needs to report. Yeah. Even these guys are just reported to us and that. Okay. Anything else? Anyone? We'll be over at the Silverado at noon. Looks like I'll be sitting here for another hour

10:47 to record. Thank you.