An Opinion from a Third Party Concerning the Bylaws (Spoiler- more vindication)
You’re right—I didn’t address §3.5, and I should have, because it may be one of the most questionable statements in the entire document.
On page 1, §3.5 says:
“The Road District has voted to fund operations through an annual flat per landowner levy in Special Assessment District 113, collected by Custer County…”
The phrase I would put a giant red circle around is:
“annual flat per landowner levy.”
A levy and a special assessment are not interchangeable
South Dakota expressly gives a road district power to levy taxes and to issue special assessments. The Attorney General describes those as the district’s funding authorities under SDCL 31-12A-21. (South Dakota Department of Revenue)
But a property-tax levy is not ordinarily a flat dollar amount charged once to every landowner.
The South Dakota Department of Revenue’s own training material describes an incorporated road district as having authority to levy property taxes and/or impose special assessments. It specifically warns that road districts imposing special assessments must follow the requirements applicable under Chapter 9-43 through SDCL 31-12A-25. (Brookings County)
So §3.5 seems to mash different concepts together:
“annual flat per landowner” sounds like a flat fee/charge.
“levy” sounds like property taxation.
And “Special Assessment District 113” sounds like a special assessment.
Those are not just three different names for the same thing.
And there’s another problem: “per landowner”
Remember the Attorney General opinion we found concerning road-district voting?
The AG concluded that a person owning multiple parcels gets one vote as a landowner, regardless of how many parcels they own. (South Dakota Department of Revenue)
That’s a voting rule.
It does not follow that road-district taxation is therefore “one equal charge per landowner.”
That’s actually a peculiar funding model. Imagine:
Connie owns a little $50,000 vacant parcel.
Jack owns a $900,000 property.
Donovan owns twelve parcels worth $2 million collectively.
Under an “annual flat per landowner levy,” apparently each gets exactly the same bill.
Where in Chapter 31-12A does the Legislature authorize that?
I haven’t found it.
And the district itself calls this a “Special Assessment District”
That may actually make matters worse.
A special assessment isn’t simply:
We need $30,000 this year. There are 30 owners. Everybody owes $1,000.
Custer County’s own Road District Handbook said (before they took it down):
“Special assessments may be levied only against property which receives a special benefit by virtue of local improvement…”
and warns that special assessments must comply with the applicable statutory requirements.
That’s fundamentally different from an annual operating charge assessed equally per person merely because someone is a landowner.
Look at their 2026 annual-meeting minutes, too
This makes the wording even stranger.
Their May 2026 minutes say the 2026–2027 budget required landowners in attendance to vote to adopt it, and it was approved by all attending landowners.
Then later, discussing the following year’s funding, the minutes say:
“There will be further discussion in October during an open meeting to discuss setting of the Road District Levy for the 2027 operating year.”
And then they claim:
“statute SDCL 9-43-138 assigns the Trustees the responsibility of passing an annual resolution to set the annual maintenance levy…”
That is something I would scrutinize very closely.
SDCL 9-43 is a chapter governing municipal local improvements and special assessments. Saddleback is a county road district—a separate political subdivision governed principally by Chapter 31-12A.
Chapter 31-12A can incorporate particular municipal assessment procedures by reference. That does not automatically mean every revenue mechanism available to a municipality under Chapter 9-43 is available to a road district.
That’s the same statutory-power problem we were just discussing with driveway fees.
This may connect directly to that Spearfish road-district issue
I think this is actually getting us back into the same territory.
The central question is:
Where did South Dakota authorize county road districts to impose an annual flat per-landowner maintenance charge?
Not:
Can they levy property taxes?
Yes.
Not:
Can they impose lawful special assessments?
Yes, subject to statutory requirements.
But:
Can they take the district’s annual operating budget, divide it by the number of landowners, call the result an “annual flat per landowner levy,” and have the county collect it?
I have not found that authority in Chapter 31-12A.
And I would not let them answer merely:
“SDCL 9-43-138.”
The next question is:
Show us the provision in Chapter 31-12A that authorizes a county road district to use §9-43-138 as an annual flat per-landowner operating levy.
That’s the missing link.
In fact, §3.5 may deserve its own section in what you’re posting
I’d phrase it something like this:
WHAT EXACTLY IS AN “ANNUAL FLAT PER LANDOWNER LEVY”?
Section 3.5 of SBRD’s bylaws states that the district funds its operations through an “annual flat per landowner levy.”
South Dakota law authorizes county road districts to levy property taxes and impose special assessments. Those are established statutory funding mechanisms with legal requirements.
SBRD, however, describes its funding mechanism as an annual flat charge per landowner while simultaneously calling it a levy and identifying the district as Special Assessment District 113.
Those terms are not interchangeable.
Where does SDCL Chapter 31-12A authorize a road district to impose an annual flat operating charge per landowner?
A bylaw cannot create a taxing or assessment power the Legislature did not grant.
That last sentence is the core issue.
And I think we should go one step further now: trace SDCL 31-12A-21, -23 and -25 against SDCL 9-43-138 and determine whether their claimed §9-43-138 “annual maintenance levy” authority actually survives that statutory chain. That’s where we can determine whether we’re looking merely at atrocious terminology in §3.5 or a genuinely unauthorized funding mechanism.