[0:03] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

[0:09] republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[0:15] justice for all.

[0:20] » Good morning and welcome to our regular meeting this Tuesday, August 4th, 2026.

[0:26] Any commissioners want anything removed from our consent agenda?

[0:31] If not, can I get a motion to pull the uh to approve the agenda?

[0:36] » Second. >> Got a motion and a second. Alicia, will

[0:39] you call the role? >> Commissioner Putnham. [laughter]

[0:44] » Uh Errens, >> yes.

[0:46] » Autton, >> I.

[0:47] » Landing? >> Yes. Motion carries. Uh can I get a

[0:50] motion to approve our consent agenda? >> So moved.

[0:55] » Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. Motion and second. Alicia, will

[1:00] you call the roll? >> Commissioner Putner,

[1:02] » yes. >> Arenss,

[1:04] » yes. >> Auton,

[1:05] » I. >> Landing,

[1:06] » yes. Motion carries. Moving on to regular business. First item on our

[1:10] agenda is board action to approve and authorize chair and auditor to execute

[1:14] the letter of engagement with the South Dakota Department of Legislative Audit

[1:18] for the audit covering January 1, 2025 through December 31st, 2025. Good

[1:25] morning, Sher. >> Good morning, Sher. Lincoln County

[1:28] auditor. I've got David here with the South Dakota legislative audit. He's

[1:32] going to go over the engagement letter with you.

[1:36] » Thank you, Sher. Good morning, commissioners. As Sherry said, my name

[1:40] is David Widler, South Dakota Department of Legislative Audit.

[1:43] » Uh we are here to conduct a fiscal uh compliance audit for calendar year

[1:49] ending December 31st, 2025. um kind of some big

[1:57] um the major things in the engagement letter that I want you to be aware of.

[2:01] Um we're going to give our opinion over the financial statements and the notes

[2:06] which uh comprise basic financial statements under government um the

[2:10] accounting standards for governments. Uh we're also going to give our opinion

[2:14] over the following supplementary information. Um that is the budgetary

[2:17] comparison schedules for the general fund and major special revenue funds. um

[2:22] the schedule of expenditure of federal awards, uh changes in long-term debt,

[2:27] and the county's proportionate share of the net pension liability or asset.

[2:32] Um kind of briefly discusses our audit objectives.

[2:37] Um the section that I want to bring your

[2:41] attention to is the management responsibilities. Um the big one here is

[2:46] we've been asked to provide the non- audit service of preparing the notes to

[2:49] the financial statements, the schedule of the county's proportion share of net

[2:52] pension liability or assets and the schedule of expenditures of federal

[2:56] awards. Um

[3:00] as that is a non- audit service um we request that um management which is um

[3:08] Sherry and the board of governance which is you guys the commission um are

[3:13] responsible for making all management decisions regarding those items and we

[3:17] will request your representation as such during the closing conference. Um

[3:23] the Sherry has been designated as a person to review the items prepared.

[3:30] Um management is also responsible for establishing and maintaining effective

[3:34] internal controls including controls over compliance for um state laws,

[3:40] federal grants, so on and so forth. You're also responsible for

[3:46] uh let's see here the design and implementation of programs and controls

[3:51] to prevent and detect fraud and to inform us about any known suspected or

[3:55] alleged fraud. Um any questions on management

[4:00] responsibilities? I know I'm kind of breezing through the letter. I can go

[4:04] back. Um

[4:10] » David, good morning. >> Good morning.

[4:13] » Is this the standard letter used with county governments?

[4:17] » Yes. Um we have four standard ones. Two um two for the cash basis counties,

[4:24] which is what Lincoln County is, and then we have two for GAP counties, which

[4:28] is uh Minaha and Pennington. Um and then there's two versions. is one for when a

[4:33] uniform guidance audit is required and one that is not. So this is the one for

[4:39] cash basis counties that need a uniform guidance because you have spent over the

[4:44] minimum threshold of federal awards. >> Thank you. Appreciate it.

[4:49] » Yep. So um it's pretty boilerplate standard that we bring in front of every

[4:56] um county when we do their audit. Any

[5:06] other questions for management responsibilities?

[5:10] » Any questions? >> All right. Thanks, David.

[5:14] » Okay. Um, the other big piece, um, it kind of briefly discusses the procedures

[5:20] that we're going to do. Um, but the other part that I think you're more

[5:24] concerned about is our billable rate for the state fiscal year 27 is $99. Um,

[5:32] 26 was $98. I'm not aware of any time spent on your audit that we would have

[5:38] done during the state's fiscal 26 year, but just in case there was, we're

[5:43] looking at $98 to $99 an hour. That does not include any time spent traveling

[5:49] here for any of us that are working on your audit. That does not involve any

[5:54] time where excuse me any time where we are here

[5:58] working on another audit or another special project. Um it's strictly time

[6:04] spent on the audit for Lincoln County.

[6:13] And I think that's all the big points. I'm happy to answer any other questions.

[6:21] » Any other questions for David?

[6:26] » Thanks, David. >> Um, I'm also required to ask about any

[6:30] if you guys are aware of any fraud, waste, or abuse that you would like me

[6:34] to look at during the course of this audit.

[6:37] commissioners. >> And if you don't want to

[6:42] » just overspending, that's about it.

[6:50] » I'll take that as a no, David. Thanks for asking.

[6:53] » We can get back to you on that. >> Yep. If I was going to say before uh

[6:57] Commissioner Putnham chimed in there, if you don't want to mention it during an

[7:00] open meeting, um can certainly Sherry's got my information. And if you want to

[7:05] talk to me, I can also give it to um commission assistant Paul if you would

[7:10] rather go through him. So >> did you do the normal interviews with

[7:15] commission with a commissioner? >> I have not yet. So yeah, we are just uh

[7:20] we've been working pretty much the second half of July. So we're just just

[7:26] getting started. We're getting our toes in the water at the moment. So

[7:29] » All right. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any public input on the

[7:34] presentation?

[7:40] All right. If not, can I get a motion to approve and authorize the chair to

[7:44] execute and the auditor to execute the letter of engagement?

[7:48] » So move. >> Got a motion. Is there a second?

[7:52] » I second it. >> Got a motion and a second. If there's no

[7:55] further discussion, Alicia, will you call the role? Commissioner Putnham?

[7:59] » Yes. >> Schmidt?

[8:00] » Yes. >> Arens? Yes.

[8:02] » Uton >> I

[8:03] » Lendine. Yes. Motion carries. Next item on our agenda is item presentation.

[8:16] » Morning commissioners. Terry Floyd, Lincoln County Highway Superintendent.

[8:19] Um I have IMAG here today um our consultant that uh did the traffic

[8:24] study, the intersection study on uh 106 and Western. So they're going to provide

[8:29] some high points of that um today.

[8:34] Morning. Thanks, Terry. Um, my name is Josh Prather. I'm here

[8:38] with Justin Pump and we're here with IMG and uh we did the 106 and Western Avenue

[8:42] traffic study and I'm going to kind of give you guys the details of that study

[8:46] here today.

[8:50] All right. So, I want to give kind of an overview of how we did this traffic

[8:53] study first and then I'll kind of dig into the conclusions here at the end.

[8:57] I'm going to start here by uh the level of service. Um, so that's kind of how we

[9:01] gauge these intersections. Um, A through F is how they're gauged. You can see on

[9:05] the right side there, uh, there's a table. So, it's based off the delay in

[9:09] seconds. Um, someone has to wait at that intersection. So, like an A is less than

[9:14] 10 seconds all the way to an F, which is more than 80 seconds or 50 seconds. It

[9:18] kind of bas kind of changes based on what the intersection configuration is.

[9:23] Um, so Lincoln County's master transportation plan and kind of the

[9:26] general um industry standard is kind of level of service C or better, you're

[9:31] good. Um, D or worse, it kind of need to improve that intersection. Um, people

[9:36] are kind of waiting too long. Um, how we did the traffic study, uh, we put

[9:40] traffic cameras up. Um, the traffic cameras, uh, counted the ADT, watched

[9:44] all the turning movements, um, kind of seeing how people are getting through

[9:48] the intersection currently, and then we project that going forward. Um we

[9:53] forecasted everything in the show for conclusions on this study are forecasted

[9:57] 20 years into the future. Um and then this is kind of a normal traffic study

[10:02] is looking 20 years into the future. And then I will touch on the current year

[10:06] scenario kind of why the tra or why we need to upgrade that intersection here.

[10:09] Um you'll see that as I get through kind of the conclusions. Um so here I'm going

[10:14] to show the best case scenario and the worst case scenario for each

[10:17] configuration we looked at. Um we went through a bunch of different iterations.

[10:21] Um, how many iterations you say you did, Justin?

[10:23] » Around eight iterations. >> So, like eight different, you know, ways

[10:26] of the future traffic. You know, it's kind of hard to predict the future, but

[10:30] we tried to do it. We looked at Sou Falls development. We looked at

[10:32] Harrisburg development, um, looked at the 106 corridor study, uh, looked at

[10:36] South Veterans Parkway study, um, the Hosman development study, yada yada

[10:40] yada, all the studies we found through that area. So,

[10:45] all right. First configuration we looked at here, um, is a traffic signal with

[10:51] the current lane configuration. So, we're not going to change anything.

[10:54] We're just going to put traffic signals up. This is the best case scenario 20

[10:57] years in the future. And I want you guys to look um here. So, this is where the

[11:03] level of service in the AM is, and this is the level of service in the PM is

[11:06] here. Um, so you can see the level of service in the morning would be a D and

[11:11] the level of service at night would be a B. Um, also kind of I kind of like I'm a

[11:16] visual guy. The seconds doesn't really get me. So right here you'd be waiting

[11:20] behind 25 cars in the morning. So if you think you know you're waiting in traffic

[11:24] behind 25 cars, it's kind of a kind of a long way is what I see that as.

[11:29] And then the worst case scenario, 20 years in the future, if we don't improve

[11:32] the intersection at all, um level service F in the morning, you'd be

[11:36] waiting behind about 73 cars and then level service E at night. So, we kind of

[11:41] threw this option out right away. Um something needs to be upgraded.

[11:45] Second one we looked at here would be a traffic signal with added lanes, an

[11:49] updated configuration. So, right turn lanes, left turn lanes. I'm kind of

[11:53] getting that whole intersection bigger with traffic signals. So the best case

[11:57] scenario 20 years in the future level of service C in the morning and then a

[12:01] level of service B at night. Um and that is actually acceptable um based on you

[12:06] know industry standards in the Lane County Master Transportation Plan.

[12:11] And then uh the worst case scenario 20 years from now we're looking at an F at

[12:16] night or in the morning and a C in the PM. Um, so in our eight iterations that

[12:22] we ran this, we kind of were everywhere between a C and an F um for the um

[12:29] worst, you know, through all of our scenarios for the traffic signals with

[12:32] those added lanes. So then we looked at a third option here. So roundabout um

[12:37] and then we needed um non-yielding right turn lanes on the north side of the

[12:42] intersection. Um so if you're coming eastbound turning north, you wouldn't

[12:45] even enter the circle. You just turn right through. And then if you're coming

[12:48] south, you just turn straight to the west. Um so the best case scenario,

[12:52] level service A in both the morning and night. Um and then worst case scenario

[12:57] at the roundabout here. Um level service B in the morning and at night. Um you

[13:03] know, worst case scenario, you're probably waiting behind, you know, nine

[13:06] cars, maybe six cars, um before you can get through the circle. So

[13:13] yeah. So I got a summary here of all those services. So, I'm going to touch

[13:17] on the current configuration. 20 years in the future, every model you run, it's

[13:21] an F. Currently, it is an E. Um, and then I think it's only one or two years

[13:27] in the future, it turns to an F. Um, so in the next, you know, 2 2 3 years, it

[13:33] will be enough people will be waiting upwards of 80 seconds at the worst time

[13:36] during the day. >> Can I ask a question?

[13:41] » Yes.

[13:44] Have you figured in highway 100 or Veterans Parkway?

[13:49] » Yes. >> In this Y

[13:50] » on Western and that intersection. >> Yes, we did.

[13:54] » Yep. We took So, there's a whole corridor study that they did for that

[13:57] and the whole corridor study you guys did for 106. So, we took into account,

[14:01] you know, the cuz the traffic is going to dip and then go back up is kind of

[14:05] the way, you know, the 20-year plan goes.

[14:09] So, >> and I'll add to that, we expect the

[14:12] traffic to increase on the northbound or the north lane of that, but decrease on

[14:16] the east west lanes. So, we took that into account doing this study as well.

[14:23] How much does the traffic dip as a result of the opening of Highway 100?

[14:30] And for how long is the dip? >> So, I can go into that. Um, it dips

[14:37] quite >> Can you move up to the microphone?

[14:39] » Yeah, sorry. >> Thank you.

[14:41] » So, it dips uh quite substantially in the east and westbound traffic. It dips

[14:46] probably about 50%. The northbound traffic stays around the

[14:51] same, if not increases due to that new highway there. It's a new entrance for

[14:56] traffic to come in. >> How long will the dip be there? Um in

[15:04] the highway 106 corridor study, it showed the dip being there past 20

[15:08] years. Um then we took into account the developments in the area and increase

[15:13] that. So about 20 years it'll get back to what it currently is in the east and

[15:17] west traffic. >> Okay. Thank you.

[15:21] » Yep.

[15:24] » So um I think we attached our whole study on this but uh the recommendation

[15:30] the conclusion from the study I'm just going to jump down to the highlighted

[15:32] portion. Um the recommended long-term solution is a single lane roundabout

[15:36] with non-yielding right turn lanes in the southbound and westbound directions.

[15:40] Um which provides the highest level of service for all times with level service

[15:44] A for both AM and PMP peak hours and contains the fewest conflict points.

[15:50] Okay, with all that that's uh kind of the gist of what we got for our uh

[15:54] study. Um yeah, open up to any more questions.

[15:58] » Commissioners have any questions?

[16:06] All right, >> Josh or Justin, when you talked about

[16:10] development, you know, future development, what kind

[16:14] of what kind of numbers or did you contemplate and where would that

[16:20] development be? >> Yeah, so there's some uh current

[16:24] developments that are planned. There's the Hosman development which is directly

[16:28] on that northwest corner of the intersection. M

[16:30] » it's an apartment complex and they performed their own traffic impact study

[16:36] and so we use their numbers that they figure will be entering and exiting

[16:39] exiting this development. The same [clears throat] goes for um developments

[16:44] south of the intersection like the Allure development and the Lone Tree

[16:49] Birdie View and the Empire companies. So, these are all planned developments

[16:55] um that we've seen and they perform their own traffic impact studies based

[16:59] on the number of people that can live in these apartments or would be entering

[17:04] the developments. >> And there's a natural percentage too

[17:07] that we increase, you know, every year based on, you know, rising populations

[17:10] around the area, too. So, now

[17:13] » you're talking about the south on the gravel road. They're going to develop

[17:18] that. That's already been given then. Yeah. Um eventually there will be

[17:24] developments in that area that's kind of shown.

[17:27] » I mean is there now projected or just just a theory?

[17:34] » Yeah, that inter that uh leg of the intersection actually increased the most

[17:39] for our projected traffic cuz right now there's very few vehicles going through.

[17:44] I believe um in the AM it was only like 15 cars in the peak hour.

[17:49] » Oh, I'm sure. And then in the future, we've got that at like 200 cars in the

[17:53] peak hour. >> I thought maybe there's somebody already

[17:56] developing or planning. >> I believe Allura is already developing

[18:00] right down there. >> Okay.

[18:02] » Is that true, Terry?

[18:10] » So, um Ally was uh uh there along County Road 117 uh to the west of this and then

[18:16] south of that is Birdie View. But there there were four or five different

[18:22] developments that went together to do a traffic study in that area. Um and there

[18:27] are there is one or two that are directly south of this at western and

[18:32] 272nd area. So and and the one that you're talking about on the north side

[18:37] with these apartment buildings on the northwest corner. Again, that traffic

[18:42] study just came to me uh probably April or something this year. It's the first

[18:47] time I heard about anything going in there. Um, and it sounds like these uh

[18:51] these are a go. Um, as far as I since they they've done the study, they done

[18:56] the back work on this. So, um, my assumption is these these will be going

[19:00] in. It's just a matter of when the start date is.

[19:05] Terry, has there been any discussion with the city of Harrisburg on what's

[19:09] going to happen uh on 117 uh at the intersection of 117 and to the

[19:18] south of Birdie View? Uh

[19:24] right now I will say this um I am uh we are working back and forth through

[19:31] access um issues uh with the city and uh like I said that those are kind of

[19:37] ongoing negotiations that that I've been working with them on.

[19:42] So, >> is uh Harrisburg interested taking over

[19:46] 117 from that intersection to the roundabout

[19:53] » of 117 south? >> Correct.

[19:57] That would be what I would prefer. Um this this is what I've been telling

[20:02] them. um the access points that they want where they want them will not

[20:08] conform to what our standard is. So I can't approve them or I won't

[20:15] approve them not on a heavily travel road like that if they're not conforming

[20:19] to my standard. And again um we've I've had many conversations with with

[20:24] officials from the city of Harrisburg uh on this. Uh we've been actually

[20:29] working on some sort of agreement for about a year

[20:34] and a half now ever since these developments kind of came to fruition.

[20:38] So um like I said I think in the end that I think hopefully my my hope would

[20:47] be that they would take these. Now, it would probably be a very similar

[20:51] agreement to what we had inked with uh the city of TE 2 years 2 years ago, 3

[20:57] years ago, um where they requested an additional 2 mi of County Road. Um

[21:03] basically, we'll we'll do an agreement with them. Um and again, the logistics

[21:09] of the agreement are are all up for I mean, I'm open to anything, but

[21:13] basically, we would give them the road right away.

[21:17] They can do anything they want to it. And basically we're going to maintain

[21:20] the surface for an x number of years so they don't have to maintain it while

[21:25] these while these developments are getting going.

[21:29] I mean that that's that would be in lie of having to make payments like we did

[21:35] six seven years ago when we had agreements with both Harrisburg and T.

[21:41] » Thank you. >> Other questions from the commission?

[21:49] All right. Thank you. Any public input on the presentation?

[21:57] » All right. If not, then we will move on to item three on our agenda. Board

[22:02] discussion on the Justice Center. Commissioner Putnham, that's your agenda

[22:05] item. Go ahead.

[22:24] Well, it's going to be a tale of three courouses.

[22:42] Okay. Hutchinson County built a courthouse.

[22:47] Hansen County built a courthouse. Turner just got theirs done.

[22:57] Let's see now. How do we do this? Place it below.

[23:03] Paul

[23:28] Okay. Now, here's one courthouse that was built. Now, I don't know if that is

[23:38] Hutchinson. It probably is.

[23:50] There we go. Hansen County, I'm guessing.

[23:56] Now that's a one story [clears throat]

[24:01] 18,000 square foot plus 5400 in the basement

[24:10] at a cost of 2.8 million and it was done in 2010 I

[24:18] think.

[24:25] Okay, now this is probably Hutchinson County. They

[24:31] just maybe done it. This is a rough draft,

[24:35] but there's about 33,000 square foot

[24:41] at a one story at a cost of $5 million. Now think of

[24:47] the square footage on this whole deal and the cost.

[24:55] When was this built? Oh, I don't know

[25:01] if it's few years ago less than 10

[25:06] and it don't matter. Cost could increase a little bit but we're we're looking at

[25:12] square footage. Now, here's Turner County. They just

[25:18] built it. That's two stories.

[25:26] And we got about 28,500

[25:32] square foot total, two stories. See, they built two stories

[25:38] because they didn't have a lot of room to go with a one story or it would have

[25:42] been a lot cheaper. [clears throat]

[25:47] Now, this is a cost of $19.8

[25:52] million.

[25:56] Now to understand what I'm saying here, we've got

[26:05] a complete upstairs with two courtrooms, a big one and a small one, and then all

[26:13] of the administration having anything to do with courtroom,

[26:18] justice, everything.

[26:24] That's on the second story. Okay. Now, my contention being to compare it to

[26:33] this court rooms that we built out there in the cow pasture

[26:40] at 74 or 5,000 square foot. Would that be right?

[26:47] Okay. Now, we go back to Turner County.

[26:55] the first floor. If we got rid of everything, just just got rid of it all,

[27:01] you know, and just it was an open place, we could probably put in about probably

[27:09] four more courtrooms with

[27:14] total of six courtrooms. Now that would be then considered

[27:20] courtrooms, not a courthouse.

[27:25] So my contention being is how the heck did we end up with 74,000

[27:35] square foot or 75,000 square ft for six courtrooms, maybe only four that

[27:43] we're using. three stories, had 40 acres, could have built one

[27:52] a one one didn't have to be three stories. Who

[27:58] signed off on that building that

[28:04] monstrosity? That's what I'd like to know. Paul, can you find out who signed

[28:08] off on that? You know, it's just

[28:14] a total what do you call it?

[28:21] A boondoggle. Big blue silo. All the people my age big blue silo

[28:28] meant. You know what it meant.

[28:34] Who? Why was this ever built? And another

[28:40] thing too, everybody kept thinking it was uh

[28:46] um oh going to be a jail there. I had a lot of people that was under

[28:51] that illusion because they built it so big and it wasn't. There's no jail, just

[28:58] courtrooms. Now,

[29:06] if you compare that, even if you added a couple thousand square foot over Turner

[29:11] County's building there and made it a little more elaborate,

[29:17] you couldn't spend $54 million. They Turner County, the guy that I

[29:25] talked to, the commissioner said, "Yeah, they had some spenders on their board,

[29:30] too. So, they spend a little more." He said they could have done it for less

[29:34] than 198.8 million, but

[29:39] you know, they have their spenders, so they cost them a little more.

[29:46] How can you compare a complete courthouse

[29:51] to what's out there in the cow pasture from $19.8

[29:58] million to $54 million.

[30:03] [clears throat] All of the taxpayers in Lincoln County are going to have to

[30:07] pay on that for how long was it? 26 years or 50 years?

[30:13] 50. 50 years. How can this how can this travesty ever

[30:20] have happened?

[30:24] I mean this is the biggest

[30:29] I don't know in the in the corporate world this would be called a joke I

[30:33] think. Um,

[30:38] so then we have

[30:42] excuse me, I solemnly do swear that I will uphold the United States

[30:48] Constitution of South Dakota and I will fairly impartially and honestly

[30:54] discharge my duties. Well, there was a dereliction of duty here.

[31:01] Now, we have to pay on that for 50 years. $3 million a year. And of course,

[31:09] this is part of the

[31:14] $12 million. Is that correct? Deficit that we have. That would be in that. 3

[31:20] million bucks would be in that. No, it isn't even in that. So, hell, for 27,

[31:26] we got 15 million. Then, would that be right? I you're throwing numbers out. I

[31:31] don't know. >> Well, the payment is 3 million bucks a

[31:36] year, my understanding. Give or take. Maybe it changes from year to year,

[31:42] 50 years.

[31:46] You even put a roundabout in the parking lot. What did that cost? Who signed off

[31:50] on that?

[31:55] Anybody?

[31:58] this I I just can't understand this.

[32:04] But anyhow, there's one part of my threepart section.

[32:12] You guys got hosed. All the taxpayers of Lincoln County.

[32:17] I'm sorry.

[32:25] Any public input on the presentation?

[32:33] All right. If not, we will move on to our opportunity for public comment for

[32:37] items not on our agenda. Anyone wishing to come up? Now would be the time to do

[32:41] so.

[32:50] » Good morning. Sarah Stever 46850 276th Street in Lennox. Uh, I just wanted to

[32:56] give a shout out to Terry for being such a good steward and last

[33:02] week trying to present a number of ways to save some money on what we are doing

[33:06] in the roads and bridges of our county. Um, I don't know if that's maybe not

[33:12] helpful to you, Terry, to get called out, but I did appreciate it and I

[33:15] thanked him and I thought I should thank him publicly for that. Um, I think

[33:19] stewardship is a really important thing. Um, and to see that was awesome. To see

[33:24] that followed by what happened with the raises and um, I would say I know it's

[33:30] hard to keep good people. You can never pay people enough because you're asking

[33:34] them for their time and they're giving you something that is most precious to

[33:37] them. Uh, and they don't ever get it back after they've spent an entire day

[33:40] working for you. So, I'm I'm happy for them. They probably all deserved a raise

[33:44] regardless of what is reflected in our budget. But the way that went through

[33:49] that I thought was maybe an injustice to someone like Terry who's working hard to

[33:53] save money on the budget is that was he the person that got the $25,000 raise or

[33:58] was he a person that got a 3% raise? Like there was no merit-based

[34:04] um that I could see as a citizen um that was part of that lump of money that got

[34:11] distributed. It just seemed like it was based on external factors, not

[34:15] necessarily the hard work or earnestness or all the good qualities that you have

[34:20] in an employee that you really value that went into who got what raises. And

[34:25] I guess in in hindsight, I wish we could have had a process where anything over

[34:30] 3% was actually pulled out and reviewed to see, you know, maybe there's a reason

[34:34] why that person wasn't where they should have been in terms of salary. Maybe

[34:37] there's a really specific reason for that. Maybe they hadn't earned it. maybe

[34:41] the person sitting next to them in the desk deserved the $25,000 raise and not

[34:46] necessarily the 3%. And the fact that that came on already a five and a half%

[34:50] for the year. Um anyway, compliments Terry. Um and I'm

[34:56] sorry. I hope he got one of the bigger raises. So, thank you.

[34:59] » Thank you. >> Other public comment today.

[35:07] All right. If not, we'll move on. Is there a commission office report?

[35:12] Not not today. >> All right. Commissioner reports,

[35:18] » madam chair, >> go ahead.

[35:20] » I was going to report on the Lincoln County achievement days. Uh I attended

[35:27] um several events that were there. Uh like

[35:31] to report that um it was very active. Uh it's nice to see um all the young 4ers

[35:40] that are out there in every dimension. The number of livestock especially the

[35:46] number of cattle uh is up considerably from where they

[35:50] were. Uh they're um I don't know give you a percentage but I think we had a

[35:56] full barn. The number of hogs of course remain fairly constant. Goats continue

[36:01] to grow. Chickens continue to grow. rabbits continue to grow and all kinds

[36:06] of activities out there and the uh the um we attended

[36:13] Commissioner Jim and I attended the style show of all things and some of

[36:18] these uh young seamstresses are are pretty good. So all in all, um I

[36:25] reminded of the fact that this county did step up and we purchased a uh

[36:31] wonderful facility for our young people and to have watched that thing grow. So

[36:37] that now we have exhibit barns for all livestock and we have an arena to uh

[36:43] present not only for uh sales but also for horse events. and we have a a room

[36:50] out there and all of that has been uh a lot of that has been contributed and

[36:55] raised by 4 uh parents themselves. So I think it's a tribute to their capacity

[37:02] and to all of the uh institutions such as banks and jerry's and everybody else

[37:08] that made a contribution. That's one. Two. I attended the IAAP

[37:13] board meeting up in um Brookings. Uh IAP interace community action continues to

[37:21] look at their services. And uh I might add that I've always

[37:26] asked for what we look at being included in IAP as opposed to rock because I

[37:33] think that the one out of Wagner uh is a mere shadow of what the uh folks do up

[37:40] at Madison. So anyway, that's that's in discussion purposes, but nonetheless,

[37:45] the numbers of people that are being served by IAP, it continues to grow. And

[37:51] the one thing they dedicated a new kitchen in which they are preparing

[37:56] meals very nutritious meals and are frozen and they are now extending those

[38:02] meals out west river where they are put in a refrigeration unit in various uh

[38:10] businesses and people can access them. So they continue there are are that

[38:17] program Meals on Wheels continues to grow as does self-help uh housing as

[38:23] does uh early childhood development and several other programs but that's enough

[38:30] for me but IP does a tremendous job. Thank you.

[38:34] » Thank you commissioner. Other commission reports this morning?

[38:39] » Yep. Go ahead commissioner. >> Um just a little update. We did have a

[38:44] meeting myself and Commissioner Schmidt with Linux on the ambulance situation

[38:49] going on there yet. Um, still working on that. I wanted to let you know we are

[38:54] actively pursuing options with that. So, uh, second thing is is less of a

[39:00] comment, more of a question. I got an email from a constituent last week and

[39:05] it's honestly something that I've wondered about for years myself as I

[39:08] wander around the courthouse. I'm assuming somebody will be able to

[39:11] provide me with an answer with it because I don't know. Their question is

[39:15] is that they're from Beersford area and as you walk around we have all the

[39:19] current communities and past communities in Lincoln County on the wall but we

[39:24] don't have Beersford on the wall. Now I'll be honest for years I've walked

[39:28] around looked at those pictures and wondered why there's no Beersford.

[39:32] We got an answer for that. I don't [laughter]

[39:37] » I don't I don't think anyone gave us one. What's the I don't think anyone

[39:42] gave us one. I think these came from I don't know where where the pictures come

[39:46] from. I think they came from the about the time that we moved from the old uh

[39:52] building to the new building and they were left over. But I don't think

[39:56] anybody ever gave us one from Beersford, but we're happy to put one up. I think

[40:01] we should make the effort as that community is continuing to grow in into

[40:05] southern Lincoln County. We should acknowledge them. I don't know who's in

[40:09] charge of that to make that happen, but >> feel free to talk to me and we'll get

[40:13] something figured out. We need to get with Mayor Celely,

[40:18] get with Eli, right, and get it done.

[40:26] » All right. Any other commission reports today?

[40:33] All right. Um, just a couple of things that come to mind as I've sat here and

[40:37] listened to Commissioner Putnham on his presentation. And I understand, you

[40:42] know, as commissioners, we can disagree about decisions that the commission has

[40:46] made. Um, historically, Commissioner, um, the courts approached us and, um,

[40:54] years ago about this. So, it's been an ongoing thing in Lincoln County for

[40:58] quite some time. So, you could familiarize yourself with that by

[41:02] watching prior meetings or having discussions with the courts, with

[41:06] myself, uh, with other commissioners who were here. Um, a couple of numbers that

[41:12] you brought up. Turner Countyy's courthouse, you said, was 19.8 million.

[41:16] Turner Countyy's population is under 10,000 people. It's actually just over

[41:21] 9,000 people. So per capita, they're spending about $2,25

[41:28] per taxpayer. In Lincoln County, that's not the case. Uh we're under budget with

[41:33] our 54.8 um bond. We have a population of over

[41:39] 77,000 people. And if you math that out, rough numbers, um, if we come in under

[41:44] budget like I'm expecting, it's roughly $650,

[41:49] um, per capita for Lincoln County. So, we are far below uh, what Turner County

[41:56] spent per person given our population of over 77,000 people. That's my report for

[42:03] today. >> Now, can I

[42:06] » No, that's a report. No, I'm gonna I'm gonna

[42:10] » Any other commissioner reports today? >> Yeah, I think I think Commissioner

[42:14] Putnham ought to be allowed to talk. Why are we censoring him here?

[42:19] » So, where do you where do you have to go this morning that you don't have time to

[42:24] give to the public? Seriously, >> the time to give to the public. So, if

[42:28] we want to go there and I didn't want to go there, Commissioner Putnham has been

[42:32] on this commission for over a year and a half. He has not toured that courthouse.

[42:38] He has not sat down and asked any questions about that courthouse.

[42:42] Instead, he just complains about it. And frankly, um the people that are working

[42:47] on that project, I've had over 200 meetings on that project. So, if he

[42:52] really had questions, really wanted to know what was going on, really wanted to

[42:56] know why the courthouse was built, he would have already had those

[43:00] discussions. >> Well, maybe you'd come back and report

[43:02] that to us without being asked to. Any commissioner here is welcome.

[43:08] » How many times have you just on your own come here and said, "Hey guys, here's

[43:14] what's going on." Hardly ever. >> And nobody's asked.

[43:18] » We don't need to ask. >> No.

[43:21] » Leadership requires you to unilaterally stand up and say to people, "Here's the

[43:27] report here. Hey guys, here's what's going on.

[43:32] I had a meeting yesterday. I'm passing along to you

[43:35] » and I just gave my report. >> Yep. 200 meetings in one report. Thank

[43:39] you. >> Um and now

[43:43] No, you're out of order. >> No, I'm not.

[43:45] » You are out of order. >> I tell you what, this deal went way over

[43:49] your head. >> It had nothing to do with

[43:55] anything more than you over spent, overbuilt, and that was it. I was

[44:00] comparing apples to apples. Do you understand that?

[44:05] » Commissioner or excuse me, Jurro, do we need executive session?

[44:10] » Yes, we need an executive session under SDCL 1252 sub3 and sub4.

[44:15] » All right. Can I get a motion under SDCL 125 sub 2? You said three and four.

[44:20] » Correct. >> All right. Can I get that motion,

[44:22] please? >> So moved.

[44:23] » Thank you. Is there a second? [clears throat]

[44:28] » Second. >> All right. We've got a motion and a

[44:30] second. Uh, Lisa, will you call the role? Commissioner Putton,

[44:34] » don't know what it's about, so whatever. >> Schmidt,

[44:40] » yes. >> Arens,

[44:41] » yes. >> Odd.

[44:43] » I. >> Landing.

[44:45] » Yes.

[44:49] » Executive session. >> So moved.

[44:51] » Got a motion from Commissioner Schmidt, second from Aaron's. Alicia, we call the

[44:56] RO. Commissioner Putton, >> yes. Schmidt,

[45:00] » yes. >> Arens,

[45:01] » yes. >> Hi.

[45:03] » Landing, >> yes. Motion carries. Can I get a motion

[45:06] to adjurnn, please? >> Move.

[45:08] » Got a motion from Schmidt. Second from Arenss. All in favor signify by saying

[45:12] I. I. Any oppose? Same sign. All right. Great. Thank you, everybody.

Lincoln County Commission August 4, 2026

Transcript