by Dave Baumeister, County Correspondent
SIOUX FALLS – Before taking on the touchy subject of a $6.5 million property tax freeze opt-out, the Minnehaha County Commission dealt with more “ordinary” business at their Tuesday, June 18 meeting.
In the past few weeks, commissioners have had the added duties of holding hearings for the FY2020 county budget. And last year, they felt while an opt-out was likely going to happen, they didn’t want to take it for 2019, as the majority believed they could get by on available funds for that year.
However, at that time, all of them referred to the very real possibility that get- ting through 2020 without an opt-out would be unlikely.
So, while a resolution to opt-out for that $6.5 million was on the meeting agenda for June 25, the June 18 agenda came with fewer “hot button” issues.
The few contentious matters that were dealt with centered around zoning issues. As is the right of all people, when the county planning board approves or denies a request, an official hearing before the county commission was held to reconsider the lower boards decision.
That was the case for zoning ordinance matter 19-05, which would have created a planned development area for a wedding barn/event center in an area zoned for agricultural use.
The petitioner, Parth Patel of Mitchell, asked for the usage change to build the event center on five acres of land located four miles southwest of Baltic.
The land in question is located just south of a 1,500 head cattle feedlot along dirt roads.
Although all commissioners expressed some doubts about the business plan for the facility, Commissioners Gerald Beninga and Dean Karsky were the only two who voiced the “let the buyer be- ware” sentiment, and said, on face value, they saw no reason to deny the zoning change.
But Commissioners Cindy Heiberger, Jeff Barth and Jean Bender sided with the planning commission’s “conflicting use” assessment that the poor quality of the roads and the proximity to the existing CAFO could lead to problems in the future and voting in line with what had al- ready been determined was the more prudent course of action.
So, the planning commission’s denial was upheld by a 3-2 vote.
In zoning matter 19-17, Roger and Dana Mulder appealed the planning com- mission’s approval of moving building eligibility from the northwest corner of land seven miles east of Sioux Falls owned by Earl Grimmius to the southwestern part of the parcel.
Zoning director Scott Anderson said it was his belief that the landowner wanted to build in an area that would allow for ac- cess along the paved county highway (264th St.) to the south of the property.
Speaking for her parents, the Mulder’s daughter discussed the location of the driveway, drainage, water pressure and septic concerns they had about the new building location.
But Heiberger explained that the high- way department would deal with the lo- cation of the driveway, any pressure issues would be the water department’s responsibility to fix, and the septic issues are regulated by the State of South Dakota.
Heiberger then made the motion to up- hold the planning commissions original approval. That motion was unanimously agreed to.
The third zoning matter, conditional use permit 19-22, was for a gravel mining operation southeast of Hartford, near the junction of Interstate 90 and Highway 38.
This permit had been approved 7-0 by the Minnehaha County Planning and Zoning Commission on May 28, and part of that decision was now being appealed to the county commission.
The approval had come with a list of 23 conditions, according to David Heinhold of the planning office. Soukup Construction, which wants the permit, appealed only condition 19, which would have required that all loads be covered with a tarp.
Barth said that South Dakota law did not require tarped loads in this situation, but does already allow for legal recourse if damage is caused by a load-hauling vehicle. He was in favor of not adding more requirements at the county level and striking this condition.
Heiberger agreed with Barth, citing the expense in having to fit all vehicles with tarps when state law did not require it, and she made the motion to strike condition 19, in favor of Soukup’s appeal.
That condition was removed on a 5-0 vote.
Why opt-out?
Back to the possible opt-out, during public comment, former county commission candidate John Cunningham said that with the jail expansion, the opt-out was needed, but he brought into question the reason for the expansion.
“The sheriff explained his reasons for the need for the jail,” Cunningham said, “But it will not make Minnehaha County a better place to live, work or do business. The reason is that you can’t incarcerate away the problem.”
He likened this approach to countering the drug problem to the failed efforts of Prohibition.
“Solving the drug problem...can only be done through addressing the demand for drugs,” he said.
Cunningham addressed the need for putting money towards rehabilitation as being a better use of funds, and thus creating more productive citizens and taxpayers.
The Minnehaha County Commission has its regular meetings each Tuesday at 9 a.m. on the second floor of the county administration building at 6th and Minnesota in Sioux Falls. These meetings are open to the public, and public comment is always encouraged.
