SPRINg & SUmmER Townships To Receive Additional nsIde $3.4 ...sdtown/doc/SummerSpring2013Newsletter.pdf · less time Reading, More Time driving The purpose of a traffic sign is to

SOUTH DAKOTA ASSOCIATIONOF TOWNS AND TOWNSHIPS

351 WISCONSIN SW • HURON, SD • PHONE 605.353.1439 • FAX 605.352.5322 SPRINg & SUmmER 2013

InsIde

ThIs Issue:Townships Receive $ 3.4 .................... 1

President’s Column ............................. 2

2013 Annual Meeting ........................ 2

Insurance Updates.............................. 3

Brighter Signs Mean Safer Roads ....... 4

Sign Retroreflectivity ......................... 5

Scholarships Awarded ........................ 6

Marvin Schwanke Memorial ............... 7

New Board of Directors....................... 7

Township Reprimanded ..................... 8

Safety Dividend Checks ...................... 9

Deene Dayton Retires ......................... 9

Legal Insights ..............................10-11

SD Dept of AG ................................... 12

FEMA & Maintenance ....................... 12

Free Tank Removal............................ 13

Impacts of 2013 Legislation ........14-15

Gravel Roads Academy ................16-17

Letter from Governor’s Office ............ 18

Farming ROW ................................... 19

As a result of the revision of the distribution of the wind energy tax fund approved during the 2013 Legislative session and the second phase of the license plate fee increase that was approved during the 2011 Legislative session, townships will be receiving an annual revenue increase of nearly $3.4 million after July 1, 2013. And if you combine the amount of this year’s revenue increases with the first phase of the license plate fee increase back in 2011 - townships will be receiving a total increase of $5.5 million per year. Below is a summary of how this additional revenue has been estimated.

SB 195: AN ACT TO REVISE THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE WIND ENERGY TAX FUND. This bill which went into effect on July 1, 2013 will increase the share that townships receive from the Wind Energy Tax collected from operators of Wind Farms. Under former law, townships only received approximately 5% of the Wind Energy Tax apportioned to local governments. SB 195 provides that townships will now receive 15% of that tax. This increase will address the problems that have occurred because many wind turbines are located along township roads. The increased heavy truck traffic from the operations has caused significant damages to township roads, and the small portion of Wind Energy Tax received by townships did not pay for necessary road maintenance and repair. Under SB 195, the townships impacted by the 9 existing wind farms, located in 8 counties, containing 441 wind turbines will receive a substantial annual increase as shown below:

Prior to July 1, 2013, wind energy tax fund provided: $119,401 / year

After July 1, 2013- SB 195 provides an estimated: $408,562 / year

However, since the Wind Energy Tax is distributed to local governments in May of each year, Townships will actually not see the increase until May 2014.

HB 1192 (2011 Session) – AN ACT TO INCREASE CERTAIN REGISTRATION FEES FOR THE USE OF MOTOR VEHICLES ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS. The total revenue increase from HB 1192 is approximately $31 million per year for local government roads and bridges. The first phase of the bill which went into effective on July 1, 2011- provided an additional $18 million per year of which counties received $12 million; cities $2.9 million; and townships $3.1 million. The second phase of the increase which went into effect July 1, 2013 will provide an additional $13

million of which counties will receive $8.7 million, cities $2.1 million and townships $2.2 million. Therefore, townships should see an increase of approximately 42% in motor vehicle registration fees from the 2011 funding bill (from $3.1 million up to $5.3 million) starting this fall.

Townships To Receive Additional $3.4 Million Per Year

Have a Fun & Safe Summer!

PReSidenT’S ColuMnBy Jim Puffer

2 s SPRING/SUMMER 2013 s SDATAT Newsletter

Greetings! It appears that each column I write somehow refers to the weather. But as a farmer and township supervisor – the weather has a serious impact on both. This year our seasons and weather have changed rapidly going from one to another rather quickly. If my memory serves me well, I think we had about one month between Winter and Summer that resembled our Spring... Yet a majority of townships roads recovered reasonably well and most crops in SD are doing great.

Last week, several of the SDATAT Board of Directors attended the annual Multi-State Meeting that was held on July 8-9, 2013 in Bismarck, ND. Four states attended from the Midwest to include representatives from North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The annual multi-state meeting provides an opportunity to hear issues relevant to each state while providing good discussion for future joint efforts. This year the primary topic of discussion focused on the damage caused by the oil boom traffic in North Dakota and excessive rainfall. We also had the opportunity to tour the Bismarck State College’s Energy Center of Excellence which showcased advancements in energy and technology. It was fascinating to see just how much has progressed in these fields.

Now that the summer is already half over and fall is around the corner, it’s not too soon to be thinking of annual meeting time. And in response to numerous membership requests - we have decided to focus on the basics of township government for this year’s annual meeting training sessions. If you have a topic in mind, make sure you let the office know (605 353-1439) and we will try to accommodate your requests.

Until next time, Have a safe, fun and successful summer!

Jim Puffer

To gear up for the for 2013 Annual Conference December 4-5, 2013 in Huron, SD. Township Government Training Boot Camp will be packed with Basic Training and Advanced Educational Sessions, Vendor Showcases, and Networking Opportunities. This year’s conference will be held at the

CrossRoads Hotel/Huron Event CenterHuron, SD 605 352-3204

There are 50 rooms blocked at the state for only $50. Once those block of rooms are gone, the rate goes up to $76.99. Please book your hotel reservation NOW before those discounted rooms are all gone! Registration/Agenda will be featured in the upcoming FALL Issue in October.

ENLIST NOW FOR THE 2013 TOWNSHIP

GOVERNMENT BOOT CAMP

SDATAT wants YOU...

L-R: Loren Ingebretsen, MN Board President, Kent Sulem, MN Gen. Counsel,Gary Pedersen, MN Ex. Dir., Larry Syverson, ND Pres., Ken Yantes, ND Ex. Sec./Dir. of

Inter-governmental Relations, Jim Puffer, SD Board President, Rick Stadelman, WI Ex. Dir., Lee Engelbrecht, WI Board President

SDATAT Newsletter s SPRING/SUMMER 2013 s 3

INSURING TOWNS AND TOWNSHIPS

Schwebach Insurance Agency402 Garfield, Dell Rapids, SD 57022

Safety Dividend Group Plan Approved By Your Association

Safety Dividend Plan Available Through All

Employers Mutual AgentsUnderwritten by Insurance Companies

1-800-657-8005

A question that we hear frequently from the towns and townships that we insure is, “Who is considered an employee and who is covered under our insurance policy?” We are fortunate to live in and near small communities where our neighbors and friends pitch in and help in times of need. Yet this willingness to do favors both big and small can lead to insurance issues and questions as to who your insurance covers and who it doesn’t.

Worse yet, it could lead to an uncovered claim.

The best example of this issue is when a farmer in your township gets his tractor out after a snowstorm and helps clear the snow from the township’s roads. This is a welcome help to the township and to the people who live on the road, but if the farmer plows down a mailbox or runs into a fence or a car, will the township’s insurance provide coverage?

The answer to this question depends on the relationship between the farmer and the township. I will provide 3 examples and the appropriate response of the insurance company.

1. If the township does not pay the farmer anything, and the farmer is removing the snow at the request of the township, the farmer is considered a volunteer for the township and would be covered for removing snow from the roads.

2. If the township does not pay the farmer anything, but the farmer went ahead and cleared the snow without the township asking him to do so, the farmer is acting on his own. He is not considered an employee or volunteer so would not be covered under the township’s insurance. He would be responsible for any injuries or property damage he causes.

3. The township has asked the farmer to remove snow and pays or otherwise compensates him for the snow removal. In this case, he is considered an independent contractor, and again, the township’s insurance would not provide

coverage for him. He is responsible for any injuries or property damage he causes.

Hopefully this helps explain who is covered by the township’s insurance when farmers and other individuals help out with snow removal or mowing. Please keep in mind that contractors who regularly blade the roads and blow snow are considered independent contractors, and not only should they have their own insurance, but you should request a Certificate of Insurance from them. Such a Certificate shows the company they are insured with, the limits of their policy, and their policy term.

If a farmer is sometimes covered and an independent contractor isn’t covered at all, who is covered under a township insurance policy? The policy covers anyone who is either an elected official or an employee for whom wages are paid and taxes reported to the government, or a true volunteer who is working without compensation and at the request of the township. Therefore, the supervisors, clerk, treasurer, and any other employees in the scope of their duties for the township would be covered.

I apologize to township officers who attended some of the spring meetings this year, as I gave incorrect information on this issue. I stated that if a board member was not paid wages and taxes reported to the government, the township’s insurance policies would not cover them. Fortunately this is not true. Whether a supervisor, clerk, or treasurer is paid wages, paid as a contractor, or even paid nothing at all, because they are an elected official, the township’s insurance policies provide do coverage. Again, my apologies for any concern or confusion caused by this false information.

One last thing of note, this article is meant to help township officers better understand the coverage provided under their insurance. Please keep in mind that insurance policies will vary and that you should rely on your own individual policy and the advice of your agent.

INSURANCE UPDATESBy Tami Schwebach


Brighter Signs Mean Safer Roads

According to the Federal Highway Administration, (FHWA) half of all traffic fatalities occur at night, even though the nighttime hours account for only a quarter of total vehicle miles driven. Closing this gap has been a major priority for many years, and making signage (traffic control devices) more visible to drivers at night is one of the most cost-effective solutions to the problem.

Brighter Signs Help improve SafetyResearch shows that use of higher performing reflective sheeting—resulting in brighter, more visible signs—helps reduce crashes and has a positive cost-to-benefit ratio.

less time Reading, More Time drivingThe purpose of a traffic sign is to communicate important information to drivers. And in real situations—driving fast, traveling at night—drivers simply have limited time to read and understand signs.

At night, highly retroreflective sheeting helps make traffic signs not only more conspicuous, but also quicker to understand. In fact, a recent study at the University of Iowa found a direct relationship between a sign’s brightness and a driver’s ability to see the sign and its message. Study participants were able to read and understand brighter signs substantially faster. This study suggests that brighter signs require less eyes-off-the-road time and more time to attend to the driving task, which is directly related to safety.

More older driversIn the U.S., nearly 8,000 baby boomers turn 65

every day—a trend that is expected to continue well into the future. By 2020, the U.S. population will include nearly 56 million citizens age 65 and older, and by 2030 that numbers swells to more than 72 million.

As people age, there is a decline in many of the abilities considered necessary to safely operate a motor vehicle. Older people, as a group, have reduced visual acuity, narrower visual fields, poorer nighttime vision, greater sensitivity to glare, slower reaction times, more attention deficits, reduced muscle strength, reduced flexibility and range of motion, and other declines in visual, cognitive, and psychomotor function that can adversely affect driving.

Prolonging the mobility and independence of older adults is an important social goal. Improving the visibility of road signs and pavement markings can be particularly important for older drivers who—between the ages of 60 and 80—need three to six times more light to see than a 20-year-old.

Maintained sign retroreflectivity, larger signs with increased letter height, advance warning and street signs, improved road delineation with wider, well-maintained pavement markings and more traffic control in work zones are some of the recommended low cost safety improvements that can benefit older drivers.

Excerpts reprinted from 3M’s “The Science of Roadway Safety” at http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_uS/nA_roadway/safety/resources/science-of-roadway-safety/


Maintaining Traffic Sign Retroreflectivity- Upcoming Deadlines

Maintaining Traffic SignTraffic signs provide important information to road users. To be effective, traffic sign visibility must be maintained during daytime and nighttime conditions.

MUTCD addresses sign visibility factors such as uniformity, design, placement, operation, and maintenance.

MUTCD does not imply that an agency must measure the retroreflectivity of every sign. Rather, the MUTCD summarizes five methods that agencies can use to maintain traffic sign retroreflectivity at or above the minimum levels.

These methods are listed in Section 2A.08 and are discussed on pages two and three of this document.

The Standard promotes safety while providing sufficient flexibility for agencies to choose one or more maintenance methods that best match their specific conditions.

This document (pdf) is referenced in Section 2A.08 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Please be sure to review the methods discussed on pages two and three, along with the related procedures that make each method reliable and meaningful in its use to maintain

signs above the minimum retro reflectivity levels. A full report on these methods can be found at www.fhwa.dot.gov/retro.

This Standard does NOT imply all signs need to be replaced. The intent is to identify and replace signs that no longer meet the needs of nighttime drivers.

The MUTCD language recognizes that there may be some individual signs that do not meet the minimum retro-reflectivity levels at a particular point in time.

Reasons for this include vandalism, weather, or damage due to a crash. As long as the agency is using one of the methods (with appropriate procedures) to maintain their signs, they are considered to be in compliance with this Standard.

The methods recommended in the MUTCD are broken into two categories: management methods and assessment methods.

Assessment methods involve sending personnel out to examine and assess the retroreflective performance of signs. Some agencies may find this approach to be more labor intensive and turn to management methods as an alternative.

Management methods may require less field work (or none at all in some cases) but may also result in replacing some signs that still have useful life left in terms of retroreflectivity.

Assessment methods involve evaluating individual signs within an agency’s jurisdiction. There are two basic assessment methods identified in the 2009 MUTCD: visual nighttime inspection and measured sign retro reflectivity.

In the visual nighttime inspection method, on-the-fly assessments of retroreflectivity are made by an inspector during nighttime conditions. The following are keys to successfully implementing the visual nighttime inspection method:

Develop guidelines and procedures for inspectors to use in conducting the nighttime inspections and train inspectors in the use of these procedures. Conduct inspections at normal speed from the travel lane(s).

Conduct inspections using low-beam headlights while minimizing interior vehicle lighting.

Evaluate signs at typical viewing distances so that adequate time is available for an appropriate driving response.

Measured Sign Retroreflectivity MethodIn this method the retroreflectivity of a sign is measured with a handheld or mobile retroreflectometer and directly compared to the minimum level appropriate for that sign. ASTM El709, Standard Test Method for Measurement of Retroreflective Signs Using a Portable Retroreflectometer, provides the standard method for measuring sign retro reflectivity with handheld instruments.

If the measured sign retro reflectivity value is less than the appropriate level, the sign should be replaced.

This article was taken in part from a pdf document that had been

updated in 2013 to reflect current compliance dates.

Counties /Townships/ Cities have until June 14, 2014 to implement and continue to use an assessment or management method that is designed to maintain regulatory and warning sign retroreflectivity at or above the minimum levels.


Logan Moody

The Board of Directors of the SD Association of Towns and Townships is pleased to announce that two students have been chosen to receive a total of $1500 in scholarships. The very deserving individuals are: John Hasche of Lake Preston with a $1000 scholarship and Logan Moody of Letcher, SD with a $500 scholarship.

John Hasche, son of Steve and Vikki Hasche lives in Baker

Township of Kingsbury County and attended Lake Preston High School. John commented that sports are his main hobby and was active in baseball, football, basketball, and weight lifting during his high school career. John plans on going to SDSU to earn a degree in Pre-Law. After graduating from Law School, he plans to start a small town firm to help people with their legal needs.

Logan Moody, daughter of Perry and Tracey Moody, lives in Elliott Township of Sanborn County and attended Sanborn Central High School. Logan enjoys basketball, volleyball, 4-H ,and rodeo and plans attending Southeast Technical Institute for a degree in the nursing field.

The Board of Directors voted earlier this year to increase the amount of the scholarship program by adding an additional $500 and offering two scholarships instead of one. The board also decided to limit the scholarship applicants to students living in only small towns or townships that were also current members of SDATAT. Over 50 scholarship applications were received this year and the qualifying applications were judged on their responses to the essay question - “Year after year more young

people leave South Dakota. What does South Dakota need to do in order to encourage the younger generation to remain in the state?” The two winning essays will be read at the 34th

Annual Meeting in Huron, SD on December 5, 2013.

Both Hasche and Moody will receive their scholarships in September 2014 as they begin their second year of postsecondary education.

SDATAT Bulletin BoardSDATAT Scholarships

Awarded

John Hasche


Marvin A. “Marv” Schwanke, 78, of Watertown, SD, passed away Saturday, March 16, 2013, at his residence after bravely enduring cancer. Marv was a loving and caring husband, father, grandfather and great-grandfather as well as a hard-working, honest man with impeccable character.

Marv was born on August 22, 1934, in Watertown, SD, to Walter and Edna (Costar) Schwanke. He graduated from Watertown High School. On December 19, 1954, Marv married Janice Olsen from Hayti, SD. The couple owned and operated the consistently successful Lake City Dairy Farm south of Watertown with Ferdy and Carol Tesch. When asked the question by the Watts News, June, 1969, “What makes a dairy farm successful?” he replied “Good management, sound judgment, and modern methods.” Marv conducted his life and business in accordance to these guiding principles. Marv was a member of St. Martin’s Lutheran Church where he served as chairman of the Church Board, as well as co-chairman of the St. Martin’s Building Committee. Marv devoted 42 years to the Pelican Township Board, helped organize the Codington County Association of Towns and Townships, served as President of the South Dakota Association of Towns and Township Board from 1984-1986, and was also the SDATAT Representative for the National Association of Towns and Townships in Washington, DC. On March 19, 1991- Marv even had the opportunity to personally meet with President George Bush during a briefing regarding returning more control back to the states.

Marv was also leader of the Pelican Boys 4H Club. He was a member of the Watertown Milk Producers, the Lake Pelican Water District Board and the Upper Midwest Allis Chalmers Collector’s Club. Marvin especially enjoyed restoring vintage Allis Chalmers tractors with his friends Larry Redlin and Craig Buss.

Marv is survived by his wife, Janice, of Watertown, SD; his four children, and many grandchildren along with several nieces and nephews. He was preceded in death by one son, his parents; one brother, and one daughter-in-law.

MARVIN A. “Marv” SCHWANKE

2013-14 Newly Elected Board of Directors - Who Are They?The SDATAT Annual Re-Organizational Meeting was held at the Sandy Cedar Lodge in Hitchcock, SD on April 3, 2013. On the agenda were the election of officers and board meeting.

elected to office were: President Jim Puffer- Supervisor of Pleasant View Twp/Beadle County, Vice President darwin Bettmann- Supervisor of Warner Twp/ Brown County, Secretary Cindy Foster- Supervisor Beaver Twp/ Miner County, and Treasurer Tom Bisek- Supervisor of Lien Twp/Roberts County.

elected to the executive Board were: david Scott- Clerk of Jackson Twp/Charles Mix, Pam Klebsch- Clerk of Three Rivers Twp/Spink Co. and Calvin Musch- Supervisor of Portland Twp/ Deuel Co.

Currently there are 13 directors serving on the Board. Any duly elected or appointed township official or officer of a municipality who is a member of the SDATAT is eligible for election by their county or multi-county association to serve a term of three years as a director. In addition to the directors elected from the county/ multi-county association- there may be two at large directors for towns and one at large director for townships. Presently there is

a vacancy for a maximum of two at large directors representing towns. The at large director for townships must be from a township that is not part of a county association. David Scott of Jackson Twp/ Charles Mix County holds the at large township director position as Charles Mix does not have an organized county association.

Maximum number of years to represent a county or multi-county area on the board is four-three year terms for a total of 12 years. However if after the fourth term has expired and all efforts are exhausted to find a replacement- the director may continue to serve one and only one more 3 year term. Mark Jensen of Hartland Twp/Kingsbury is serving his final fifth term (ending in Spring of 2014) as a director for the Kingsbury County ATAT as no replacement could be found.

Dan Thyen of Waverly Twp/Codington is also serving until the Codington County ATAT next meets this fall and finds a replacement. if you are a town or township official and member of either of these county associations; and are interested in serving as a board of director for SdATAT- please contact your county association or the SdATAT office at 605 353-1439.

In Memory of Former SDATAT Director


Township Reprimanded for Open Meetings Violation

Excerpt reprinted from Huron Daily Plainsman, June 30, 2013 By Roger Larsen

HURON — For failing to give public notice of at least two meetings in October 2012, a township board of supervisors

in Kingsbury County was reprimanded by the South Dakota Open Meetings Commission on Friday, June 28, 2013 in

Huron, SD.

Five state’s attorneys, appointed by the Attorney General, serve as members of the Open Meetings Commission, which was

established in 2004 to ensure that South Dakota government is open and accessible to all citizens. The current Chair is

John Steele (Aurora County). The other four members are Mark Reedstrom (Grant County), Lisa Rothschadl (Bon Homme

County), Emily Sovell (Sully County), and Kevin Krull (Meade County).

The township board of supervisors was publicly reprimanded for failing to inform the public ahead of time

for meetings occurring on or about oct. 24 and 30. in the ruling, the commissioners said it was based on the

admission of the principal parties.

The township treasurer acknowledged during the hearing that throughout his 30 years of service the board had never

posted notices of its regular meetings because it had never been an issue.

The complainant (former township clerk) brought forth the complaint. Her attorney, Don McCarty of Brookings, said the

case stemmed from actions taken by the board in the aftermath of a road washout.

The township’s application for Federal Emergency Management Agency (Hazard Mitigation Grant) funds to install two

nine-foot culverts was approved. The board later decided to only install one culvert and use the rest of the $32,000

in grant funds for other purposes. The project scope changed a couple more times, but it is unclear when and exactly

who made the decisions. The township did refund a portion of the grant back to FEMA. McCarty also said there are no

minutes of meetings that occurred between July and October and decisions were made at the project site without notice

or minutes. The plaintiff, who was also township’s clerk at the time, was not notified of these meetings, McCarty said.

The treasurer (who has served since the early 1980s), said the board has never posted notices of its meetings over the

years. That practice continued until the complaint was filed and the board became versed in the law. The treasurer

believes the issue is the plaintiff was upset that the township didn’t install the size of culverts they wanted. The road was

washed out for two years and doesn’t lead to anyone’s home, he said. FEMA funds only cover a portion of the costs and

the township didn’t have the money to install nine-foot culverts. The township operates on limited funds and has to

address other needs. He also said FEMA is happy with how the project turned out. The treasurer also said many of the

decisions were not made in meetings but in phone calls. Decisions were made on a sound fiscal basis, he said.

But the only issue as far as the commission was concerned was procedural and whether there were violations of the open

meetings law, not the scope of the project.

The commission restricted its decision to the fact the board failed to give public notice beforehand of its Oct. 24 and Oct.

30 meetings. It is clear no notices were posted, but it is unclear as to whom or how many of the supervisors were making

the decisions.

* A listing of all current open meetings law can be found on our website under the “members only” section at www.sdtownships.com


BEADLE COUNTYBonilla Township Pleasant View Township Wolsey Township BROOKINGS COUNTYWinsor Township ] CLARK COUNTYThorp Township CLAY COUNTYGlenwood Township DAVISON COUNTYLisbon Township Prosper Township DAY COUNTYEgeland Township DEUEL COUNTYGlenwood Township Herrick Township Hidewood Township DOUGLAS COUNTYIndependence Township

EDMUNDS COUNTYBryant Township FAULK COUNTYPioneer Township GRANT COUNTYMazeppa Township Melrose Township

HAMLIN COUNTYNorden Township

HAND COUNTYGrand Township

HANSON COUNTYTaylor Township HUTCHINSON COUNTYKassel Township LINCOLN COUNTYDeleware Township MINER COUNTYBeaver Township MINNEHAHA COUNTYBentonTownship Brandon Township MOODY COUNTYEnterprise Township SANBORN COUNTYLogan Township SPINK COUNTYBeotia Township Jefferson Township Olean Township YANKTON COUNTYMission Hill Township Utica Township

!! REMINDER !!Safety Dividend Checks

Still OutstandingIn February of this year SDATAT paid out a total of $44,171 to South Dakota participating township members from the EMC Insurance Company in compliance with the Safety Dividend Program. The following counties still have not cashed their safety dividend checks that were sent out in February, 2013. Please make an effort to have these cashed by July 15, 2013.

Deene Dayton Retires After 36 Years….

Deene Dayton, Director of Local Government Assistance for the Department of Legislative Audit retired on June 7, 2013 after 36 years of service to local governments in South Dakota.

Deene offered the following comments regarding his work with townships over the years: “My father was a township board member in Spink County for over thirty years. That gave me insight into the role of townships. With that framework I was able to go forth and share the knowledge that I had built over the years with township officials that were just looking for an answer. Now I can slip into the next chapter of my life with the assurance that the role of assistance for townships will still be in place. Thank you for an enjoyable career.”

Rod Fortin will be replacing Deene as Director of Local Government Assistance. Rod is a native of Doland, South Dakota and a graduate of South Dakota State University. Rod began his career with Legislative Audit in June of 1998 and was an Auditor III with nearly fifteen years of experience auditing and assisting South Dakota local governments prior to his promotion.

Rod said the following regarding his new role at Legislative Audit:“I look forward to continuing Legislative Audit’s service to townships. I am available for any questions that townships may have and will work hard to provide the best possible assistance to township officials. “

Rod will be operating out of an office in Sioux Falls rather than Pierre. You can reach Rod at his direct line in Sioux Falls Rod at 367-5810 or through the Department of Legislative Audit’s main number at 773-3595. Rod can also be reached via e-mail at [email protected]. Rod’s office address in Sioux Falls is: department of legislative Audit, 300 S. Sycamore Avenue, Suite 102, Sioux Falls, Sd 57110-1323

Deene Dayton (left) welcomes Rod Fortin to his position as Director of Local Government Assistance

REMINDER:Next required township meeting is

Tuesday, Oct. 29, 2013Pursuant to SDCL 8-5-1


legal insights on Fire Protection & Boundary line Roads

This article is intended to address some frequently asked questions, many previously addressed, with suggestions for handling those issues. When reading a law, it is important

to remember “shall” is mandatory and “may” is discretionary.

QUESTION 1: Are townships required by law to have fire protection contracts?

ANSWER: Yes. SDCL 8-9-4 requires townships to enter into such contracts. The only exception is if a township or a portion of it is within a fire district. In that event it is necessary to contract only for that portion of the township not in the district.

QUESTION 2: How is the amount of compensation to the fire department determined?

ANSWER: SDCL 8-9-4 (on page 34 of your manual) states the amount of the contract shall be set by negotiation.

QUESTION 3: What should the fire department provide?

ANSWER: The fire department is required to provide to the township the estimated cost of fire protection broken down into categories of equipment, buildings, material and personnel. What this means is they are to provide a proposed budget. That documentation, in my opinion, should include a copy of their expenses for the past year’s expenses or accounts for capital outlay, for new trucks, buildings etc. The contract may not have a term that exceeds ten years.

QUESTION 4: How are we to be assessed?

ANSWER: It varies from each township/fire department. Some propose it be based on the taxable basis of the township, others base it on the number of residents, others on a fee per acre, others on a flat fee. Each township should determine whether other townships, or chartered/unchartered cities are being served by the fire department and are taxed on the same basis or

different basis. Is the system fair?

QUESTION 5: Does the township have to enter into contracts with fire districts?

ANSWER: No. Fire districts are a taxing entity and therefore will be assessing taxes on property within the fire district. Under South Dakota law it’s not necessary for the township to provide additional financial resources to the fire district.

QUESTION 6: What are the key components that township’s should be addressing before entering into an agreement?

ANSWER: Get the following information: A) the costs of the service being provided; B) the method of determining the costs; C) compare the amount that other neighboring townships or communities are paying; D) compare the services being provided by your fire department and those of adjacent fire departments or districtsE) clarify who owns the equipment, especially if you are asked for additional funds to purchase large dollar equipment such as trucks.

QUESTION 7: Who makes the final decision on the amount of monies to be spent on fire protection?

ANSWER: The statute requires the contract to be negotiated. That means both parties must enter into a good faith discussion to reach what is a fair and appropriate amount for fire protection. As indicated above, in my opinion, it means the fire department must provide information and should be ready to justify their request for payment. Also, in my opinion, that can only be done if there is full disclosure of


Legal Insights...Cont’d from Page 10

their present financial situation, future plans, as well as what other monies are being collected from other government entities. If negotiations fail, then in that event, the township is technically in violation of state law, as you are required to contract for fire protection. A township may enter in discussions or negotiations to contract with another fire department or investigate the possibility of creating a fire district. Ideally the negotiations should be nearly completed prior to the annual meeting. This would allow an accurate presentation of the budget at the annual meeting.

QUESTION 8: Does a township have to provide ambulance or emergency services?

ANSWER: No. The decision to enter into a contract for ambulance services is specifically addressed in SDCL 8-9-7 (on page 35 of your manual). It provides that the township may contract for such services provided the term is no longer than ten years, and payment is not more than $1,000 a year. If the township desires to spend more than $1,000 per year for this service, then it must be approved by the voters of the township.

QUESTION 8: Which township is responsible for boundary line roads between townships?

ANSWER: Both are responsible. SDCL 31-17-1 states: “The adjoining township shall contribute equally to the construction, improvement, and repair of any township highway that lies on a section line forming the boundary between the townships.” This section goes on further to say this does not prohibit the respective townships from meeting and mutually agreeing on alternative procedures for apportioning the responsibilities and costs. As a result many different formulas have been reached between townships to accomplish maintenance. Some townships agree to alternate every other mile. For example, others agree to be responsible for the east one-half of the entire boundary line road and the other township is responsible for the west one-half. At times, others may agree to vacate one or more of those boundary line highways eliminating the entire expense and liability for both.

QUESTION 9: Should the agreement be in writing?ANSWER: I recommend there be a joint Resolution adopted by both townships to cover the routine expenses such as snow removal and blading. In the event of a major or extraordinary expense such as a road being washed out by flooding, or replacement of one or more culverts, then in that event the townships may want to agree to split the cost 50/50.

QUESTION 10: Should this agreement be recorded?

ANSWER: It is to be recorded in the minutes of both townships. Thus the agreement is set forth in writing and as supervisors change and situations arise there is already a basis or formula resolving any disputes. In the event there is a dispute which cannot be informally resolved there is a formal method (starting on page 82 of the manual) SDCL 31-17-8 through 17 establishes the requirements and process for a court judgment as to the requirement for equal contribution.

This article is intended to provide general legal advice to our readers on new and developing issues and to provide some common sense answers to complex legal questions. You are urged to consult legal counsel of your choice or the author of this article if you wish to obtain a specific legal opinion regarding how these legal standards may apply to your particular circumstances. If you have specific questions you are encouraged to contact the attorney of your choice, or me, Jay Leibel of Issenhuth & Leibel, LLP at 205 North Egan Avenue, PO Box 28, Madison, South Dakota 57042 at (605) 256-9161.


SD Dept. of Ag Promotes Local ControlAs part of the South Dakota Department of Agriculture’s (SDDA) efforts to better support local control, SDDA has been working closely with Todd Kays of the First District Association of Local Governments (Watertown) and Greg Henderson with District III (Yankton) to establish an initiative that will help local governments identify potential development opportunities in their respective rural areas.

The purpose of the initiative is to identify sites that may be conducive to development based on considerations such as current laws, local zoning, denR permitting requirements, the

availability of utilities, etc. The process also includes identifying any challenges that may be present at those sites (such as inadequate infrastructure), prior to the pursuit of any specific project. The goal is to provide local leaders with information and research-based resources, with which they can better, understand potential opportunities and, ultimately, make well-informed decisions if specific projects are brought for their consideration.

Since agriculture is the state’s No. 1 industry and the largest investor in our rural communities, further developing this industry in South Dakota has

obvious economic benefits. However, it is incumbent upon us all to undertake development in a way that helps the right opportunities find the right locations. We hope this cooperative effort between the state and local governments can help promote economic development in locations that best fit each individual project.

For more information contact: Paul Kostboth, Division Director for SD Agricultural Development at 605.773.5436 or e-mail Paul at [email protected]

Thoughts OnMaintenanceTo meet the basic rule of FeMA eligibility, an item of work must be required as a direct result of the declared disaster. Normal maintenance items that existed prior to the disaster, such as pothole repair, routine pulling of ditches, and minor gravel maintenance; and deferred maintenance, such as replacing rotted timber and repairing deteriorated asphalt and leaking roofs, are not eligible because they do not meet the criterion of being disaster-related. For example: if a culvert’s annual maintenance report indicates that the culvert was full of debris (tree limbs and sediment) before the disaster, the work to remove the obstructions from the culvert would not be eligible.

For facilities that require routine maintenance to maintain their designed function, such as culverts, roads, bridges and dams, it may be possible to review pre-disaster maintenance or inspection reports to verify the pre-disaster condition and to assess eligible disaster damage.

in instances where damages can be attributed to the disaster instead of lack of maintenance, repairs are eligible. It is the applicant’s responsibility to show that the damage is disaster related.

This is a direct quote from Public Assistance Guide FEMA 322/ June 2007.

MILBANK WINWATER WORKS 102 EAST 22ND AVE.-PO BOX 350 MILBANK, SOUTH DAKOTA 57252

PHONE#800-743-2972

SERVING SOUTH DAKOTAS TOWNSHIPS AND COUNTIES

WE ARE YOUR WATER MANAGEMENT AND ROAD STABILIZATION EXPERTS

CARRYING A FULL LINE OF PRODUCTS TO MEET ALL YOUR TOWNSHIP NEEDS

• STEEL AND POLY CORRUGATED CULVERTS

• ROAD STABILIZATION F ABR ICS

• EROSION CONTROL FABRICS

• FULL LINE OF P IPE, VALVES AND FITTINGS IN

MANY SIZES FOR NEARLY ALL APPLICATIONS

FEMA


Free Abandoned Underground Tank Removal


Legislative Impacts Cont’d on Page 15

Impacts of 2013

SDATAT Legislation

This year SDATAT had great success

in accomplishing what we set out to

do. Many thanks to the numerous

township officials who testified at

session and contacted legislators

asking for their support; and a

special thank you to our lobbyist

Dick Howard who diligently worked

to make this all happen.

Legislation which was passed

during the 2013 Legislature became

effective on July I, 2013. Listed

below are bills that will directly

affect Townships in conducting

their business. Also included in this

year’s legislation was SB 195 which

is already listed on page 1.

HB 1112: An ACT To ClARiFY THe APPliCATion oF CeRTAin oPen MeeTinGS PRoViSionS To CeRTAin THRee-MeMBeR BoARdS. This bill was a product of the

Open Government Task Force that

was created by the Governor and

Attorney General last summer.

SDATAT Executive Director, Diane

Worrall, served on the Task Force

and indentified the difficulties

for townships to comply with

open meeting laws and public

notice requirements when 2 or

more supervisors work together

in performing activities, such as

road maintenance, inspection and

installation of signs and culverts,

and other public safety functions.

HB 1112 provides that a quorum

of townships supervisors that

meet solely for the purposes

of implementing previously

publicly-adopted policy or

doing works like replacing a

stop sign, clearing snow, or

inspecting culverts are not

subject to requirements of the

open meeting laws. However all

actual meetings held for the purpose

of establishing policy, adopting

budgets or conducting other public

business are still subject to the open

meeting laws.

SB 126: An ACT To ReViSe THe PRoViSionS THAT AuTHoRiZe ToWnSHiPS To CoMBine THe oFFiCeS oF THe CleRK And THe TReASuReR. This bill authorizes townships with

50 or fewer resident registered

voters to combine the offices of

the Clerk and Treasurer. This

would have to be done during the

Annual Meeting or during a special

meeting that is publicized in the

newspaper of the township by a

majority vote of voters present, and,

if approved, the office of the Clerk

and Treasurer would be nominated

and elected at the meeting. Former

law allowed only townships with 20

or fewer resident voters to combine

the offices.

SB 156: An ACT To AuTHoRiZe ToWnSHiP BoARdS To inCReASe THe FRonT FooT ASSeSSMenT FoR RoAd MAinTenAnCe, RePAiRS, And iMPRoVeMenTS. This bill authorizes townships

to increase the annual front foot

assessment for road and street

repairs from 80 cents per front

foot up to $2.00. This increase is

primarily to compensate for the

inflation that has occurred in the

highway construction industry

since 1999, when the rate was

last increased. This assessment

applies mainly to rural subdivisions

with approved plats and certain

township “road districts”. At 80

cents per foot, the assessment

could only raise $4200 per mile –

which doesn’t accomplish much in

rural subdivisions that desire paved

roads. An assessment of $2.00 per

foot will raise $10,600 per mile per

year. The increase is discretionary

and is only assessed where property

owners want the assessment in

order to upgrade their roads.


SB 151: An ACT To ClARiFY THe MAinTenAnCe ReSPonSiBiliTieS on uniMPRoVed SeCTion lineS. This bill clarifies that townships are responsible for constructing, repairing and maintaining all township roads “except for section lines designated as no maintenance section lines”. In the past townships could only designate roads as “full maintenance” or “minimum maintenance”. SB 151 authorizes a third classification for the Board to designate an unimproved section line not maintained for vehicle travel as a “no maintenance section line”. it specifies that the Board has no maintenance responsibilities on a “no maintenance section line” except to require removal of man-made obstructions to maintain public access. The bill also requires townships to place signs on the designated “no maintenance section lines”, similar to signing for “minimum maintenance” roads. The signing is to warn the public that this section line is not being maintained for public travel and that no travel is advised, as a method to reduce the liabilities to the townships. Loaders

BackhoesSkid loadersAir compressorsRollersBrooms

RentalsNew

UsedParts

ServiceAttachments

DMI 800-456-4005DIESELMACHINERY.COMSioux Falls Aberdeen Rapid City

Artificial obstructions MUST be kept off road surface to allow travel, even on no maintenance roads.

Impacts of 2013 SDATAT Legislation...

Cont’d from page 14


Another Gravel Roads Academy Well Attended!

Nearly 60 motor grader operators, street and highway supts., county commissioners, and township officials attended two “Gravel Road Academies” last month held in Pierre and Huron, SD. Participants learned the best practices in unpaved road construction and maintenance-covering everything from basic road design and shape, road maintenance, road stabilization, program efficiency, and actual field training. This event was sponsored by SDLTAP and North American Salt Company. The two-day course provided the most cost-effective ways to build and care for gravel roads, stressing how proper upkeep benefits local road departments by reducing the amount of money spent on road grading, gravel replacement and equipment maintenance. Stabilization is particularly beneficial on higher volume routes to save gravel and drastically reduce frequency of blade maintenance.

The first day was classroom training while the second day was out into the field for a more hands-on-approach to grading techniques, measuring slope/crown of roads and actual road stabilizer application.

According to Greg Vavra with SDLTAP- Greg commented that townships can expect to pay approximately $5000 -$6000 for treating approximately one mile of a typical township gravel road with magnesium chloride for road stabilization and dust control. However these costs increase as road widths increase. It is imperative that good quality surface gravel be used that meets the state spec minimums for surface gravel. Proper road geometry must be present and a crown near 4% must be obtained for best results. For more information regarding road stabilization and dust control, please contact SDLTAP (Ken Skorseth or Greg Vavra) in Brookings, SD at 1-800-422-0129.

Benefits of using Road Stabilizers (Magnesium Chloride) - Keeping Your

Maintenance Costs Grounded

Gravel replacement costs can be reduced by nearly 60% with road stabilizers (magnesium chloride). Studies have shown that as much as two tons of aggregate per mile are lost annually for each vehicle that passes over an untreated road daily. Applying road stabilizers such as magnesium chloride can:

*Pays for itself: Reduces aggregate replacement, less blading and watering, and lower associated labor costs. *increases driver visibility*Reduces damage: Lowers frequency of chipped windshields, congested filters and clogged bearings *Reduces dust: for a Healthier environment *lowers Fuel Costs: Smoother, firm driving surface increases vehicle efficiency.

Ken Skorseth and Dave Sorenson perform actual gradiation of gravel using sieves to check quality of surface gravel

Continued on page 17Distinct difference is shown between treated vs untreated gravel at Huron

test site one month after application of magnesium chloride


Gravel Roads Academy...Cont’d from pg. 16

www.butlermachinery.com

The National Institute of Governmental Purchasing (NIGP), National Association of State Procurement Officials (NASPO) and National Association of Fleet Administrators (NAFA) endorse the use of Life Cycle Costing as a preferred procurement method.

© 2013 Caterpillar All rights reserved. CAT, CATERPILLAR, their respective logos, “Caterpillar Yellow,” the “Power Edge” trade dress as well as corporate and product identity used herein, are trademarks of Caterpillar and may not be used without permission. www.cat.com www.caterpillar.com

Bismarck, ND 585013630 Miriam Ave701-223-0890

Dickinson, ND 586012803 I-94 Business Loop E 701-456-1400

Fargo, ND 581043402 36th St. SW701-280-3100

Grand Forks, ND 582011201 S. 46th St.701-775-4238

Hankinson, ND 5804117040 Hwy 11701-242-7474

Hoople, ND 582437695 Hwy 18 S701-894-6363

Jamestown, ND 584011910 27th Ave. SE701-251-1400

Minot, ND 587011505 Hwy 2, Bypass E701-852-3508

Aberdeen, SD 574014950 E. Hwy 12 605-225-6240

Huron, SD 573501715 US Hwy 14 W605-353-1200

Pierre, SD 57501801 N. Garfield Ave.605-224-5400

Rapid City, SD 577023601 Deadwood Ave.605-342-4850

It’s a fact: bids often award to the lowest initial price. But there’s the price of buying a piece of equipment – and then there’s the cost of owning it. Depreciation, repairs, and maintenance can severely impact an agency’s budget and add high equipment costs beyond the initial price.

Life Cycle Costing is a better way to evaluate purchase options. It protects budgets by requiring bidders to disclose the expected lifetime costs of service, repair and other facts to yield a true value comparison.

Caterpillar makes Life Cycle Cost proposals easy. Visit govbidspec.com to download bid specs, Life Cycle Cost forms and Scheduled Maintenance forms. Edit them to your agency’s needs and include them with your RFP to bidders.

Butler Machinery can show you the benefits of incorporating Life Cycle Costing into your agency’s RFPs. When you have all the facts, you’ll find Cat equipment delivers lower total costs and better return on investment.

Get the facts. Get the Life Cycle Cost advantage at govbidspec.com.

SPEC WITH CONFIDENCE

www.cat.comwww.govbidspec.com

Sioux Falls, SD 571073201 N. Louise Ave.605-336-3010

CGV-178J-3.indd 1 1/28/13 10:57 AM

Recommended Preparation and Application of Road stabilizers:

Road Surface: Before applying magnesium chloride- eliminate ruts, washboards, potholes, drainage problems, gravel segregation and hard, impervious areas. The use of carbide bits should be used to loosen material to a depth of around 3” for best long term results prior to application.

Pre-Watering: The road should be watered to a depth of 3 to 4 inches to break the surface tension and allow maximum penetration before applying road stabilizer.

Application: Recommended application is ½ gallon per square yard, split in two ¼ gallon per square year applications. This will ensure deep, even penetration for maximum dust control and stabilization.

Compacting: Once treated, the road need not be compacted unless rain is in the forecast. Rolling too

early may pump the chloride to the surface and cause premature failure. General traffic is usually used to compact the treated surface.

Greg Vavra, SDLTAP, points out the importance of using carbide bits to loosen gravel to prepare road surface prior

magnesium chloride application



**UPDATED**IMPORTANT PHONE

NUMBERSSDATAT Executive Director:Diane Worrall (office) 605 353-1439 (cell) 605 354-2799 (fax) 605 352-5322

SDATAT Lobbyist:Dick Howard 605 224-8503

SDATAT Attorney:Jay Leibel 605 256-9161

SDLTAP (Technical Road Ass’t)Ken Skorseth 800-422-0129Greg Vavra 605 695-0901

SD Dept. Legislative AuditRod Fortin 605 367-5810(bids, contracts, audits)

SD Dept of RevenueColleen Skinner 605 773-5120(opt outs/special Taxation)Sales Tax Division 605 773-5141

SD Dept. of TransportationDoug Kinniburgh 605 773-5361(Local Gov’t Ass’t)Lance Birger 605 773-3476(Signing Grant Program)

SD Office of Attorney GeneralDiane Best 605 367-7804(Open Meetings Laws)

Office of Emergency Mgmt 605 773-3231Jason Bauder or Jack Dokken(Public Assistance/FEMA)Nicole Prince Hazard Mitigation Grant

SD Governor’s OfficePatrick Weber 605 773-5999(Staff Analyst)

Your County Highway Supt: Your FEMA Public Assistance Coordinator

FARMING the “RIGHT OF WAY” is AGAINST THE LAW

Many townships are experiencing an increase in locations where crops are being planted in the road right-of-way. Several safety and environmental concerns have surfaced which may require the township to take action. Plowing, planting row crops, fencing, or dumping rocks and other debris in the road right-of-ways are prohibited by South Dakota laws (SDCL 31-32-3.1 and SDCL 31-32-7).

The intent of the law is to protect the safety of the traveling motorist, prevent soil erosion, enhance water quality, provide good drainage and allow for proper maintenance of the right-of-ways. Safety is an important factor in roadside vegetation. Crops planted in the R-O-W next to roads limit visibility. As the fields and right-of-ways are plowed, soil from the field is deposited in the ditches, which limit their drainage capacity. Without permanent road-side vegetative cover, the exposed soil erodes and plugs culverts and creates larger drainage issues for the townships. All of these things create serious safety concerns and higher maintenance costs for the township. By leaving the right-of-ways with permanent vegetation (grass), this can limit the potential for water problems and maintain the proper environmental conditions.

Utility service is also being affected. Their facilities are being damaged by farm equipment and/or buried or covered by crop growth.

Numerous counties and townships have taken measures to stop agricultural encroachment with good success. SDATAT’s attorney- Jay Leibel has composed numerous letters to warn or stop landowners from farming the right of way and can be utilized by your township. Letters can be found at www.sdtownships.com under “Members Only” section. If row crops are planted within the town road right-of-ways, the township does have the authority to take legal action (including removal of the crops) but should consider consulting with an attorney beforehand as there are many things to consider such as the exact location of the right of way, criminal penalties, and recovering costs incurred by the township.

Remember, legal action can only be taken after a majority vote of the board. It is imperative the board make the proper motion and document those actions in your minutes before taking action against the landowner.

Prsrt Std

U.S. Postage

PAIDPermit No. 180

Huron, SD 57350

South Dakota Association

of Towns and Townships

PO Box 903

Huron, SD 57350

SOUTH DAKOTA ASSOCIATION OF TOWNS AND TOWNSHIPS (SDATAT) ISSN 1072-2505 Published quarterly to provide information, education, and

technical assistance to local governments, by the SOUTH DAKOTA ASSOCIATION OF TOWNS AND TOWNSHIPS PO BOX 903, HURON SD 57350

DIANE WORRALL, EDITOR AND ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR Creative Printing, Huron, SD, PrinterRegistered with the Library of Congress.

Postmaster: Send notices or change of address forms to Huron, 57350-0903. *If readers have any comments, corrections, submissions or display ads for this publication, call (605) 353-1439 or FAX (605) 352-5322.

This newsletter is agricultural inks printed on recyclable paper.

Jim Puffer, President ...................................HitchockDarwin Bettman, Vice President ................ AberdeenCindy Foster, Secretary ..................................Fulton Tom Bisek, Treasurer ......................... New Effington Pam Klebsch, Executive Board .................... Redfield

David Scott, Executive Board. ......................Geddes Calvin Musch, Executive Board ...............Clear LakeRodney Stormo, Director .................................Hayti Jerry Lingen, Director ............................. Sioux FallsMark Jensen, Director .....................................Erwin

Dan Thyen, Director ................................... WaverlyAl Johnson, Director ................................ BrookingsKen Siemonsma, Director ...................... Dell Rapids

You create the infrastructure theY need. And communities Are built stronger every dAy.

Smart Works.

www.sheehanmacksales.com

Aberdeen 38490 Highway 12

Aberdeen, SD 57401 800-753-6225

Rapid City 1810 Deadwood Avenue

Rapid City, SD 57702 800-999-6286

Sioux Falls 901 E. 60th Street North Sioux Falls, SD 57104

800-289-6225

Volvo Construction Equipment

173-953-1 Sheehan Mack_MG_7.5x4.5 BW_L1_sw.indd 1 5/23/13 5:56 PM

Documents

SPRINg & SUmmER Townships To Receive Additional nsIde $3.4 ...sdtown/doc/SummerSpring2013Newsletter.pdf · less time Reading, More Time driving The purpose of a traffic sign is to