[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.