Meeting 1- Before My Time
I’m filling in the earliest documentation for the Saddleback Road District. I was not a part of the activity at that time. I had met a couple neighbors, and in the very beginning for us, we were informed there was a $200 a year road district fee. That’s pretty much all we were told except that the neighborhood was in charge of that money and it’s a wonderful thing and blah blah blah…. and I believed every word.
I had never heard of a road district before. This property is the first I had ownership in.
I traveled a lot for the rest of my life. Internationally and domestically. Possibly due to that, I really wanted to settle in and be one of those people who knew her neighbors and gossiped over the fence.
But then I got to know some of the neighbors, the ones who loved power, and heard some actual gossip, and I started to pull back a bit. I realized this was not for me. But I’m getting ahead of myself.
This is the meeting minutes from the first meeting. This was provided to me later, as part of an email that included the minutes of the first several meetings.
These documents did not include the emailed notices or agendas, but as I was serving with the same people when I got elected, I feel safe in saying that nobody was ever notified of any meeting other than the annual trustee election, and agendas were pretty sketch, if existed at all.
So, welcome to meeting one. I’ll be back to pick it apart afterward.
Things to take note of. There is a list of landowners with properties inside the district. And then there is a list of landowners who are NOT in the district.
Keep in mind that the Ghost Canyon Road District was created in 2005 by one guy. The developer of the area. The development was in 3 stages. So, 3 subdivisions. Only the first subdivision was included in the the newly formed district in 2005.
Why does this matter? Because only landowners within a district can vote or be trustees etc. The real movers and shakers of this district were the Barkers, Amundsons and possibly the Greens. It had support from several other landowners within the district, but it is my contention that many of them were ignorant of the facts.
As you can see from these minutes, the Barkers and Amundsons and Greens (and a few others) were not legal voters in the district.
It is stated here that signs were made and there were paper notices delivered to structures etc. My problem with this is that at this time, there were a number of owners of vacant lots. They lived elsewhere and didn’t go visit their empty land regularly, and so would not have seen that notice.
Of course this issue is secondary to the fact that the Barkers, a single landowner under the law, are holding two positions in a 3 person board in a district they cannot legally vote in nor hold any position on the board.
The minutes go on to say that- “The “Ghost Canyon Road District” was established in July, 2005 by the original land developer. (see attached- order to incorporate). Since that time the only maintenance on the road has been done by and the costs incurred by those who live on it. Special thanks to John Green and Tyrell Bradley for their work on this over the years. Green, Barker and Johnson have communicated with the Custer County Auditor, Nancy Christensen. It was determined what procedures we need to follow through with in order to reach the goals of the above agenda.
“has been done by and the costs incurred by those who live on it.” Yes, that is how it should be. In fact, nothing changes by activating a road district except the forcing of others, some who do NOT live on that road, to pay for that road.
Can you feel my disgust at the forced subsidizing of poor choices?
I have nothing against these people personally, but they did purchase property on an area of road that sucks. We could have bought back there too, but we didn’t. We bought on a small road at the beginning of the district, just a half mile from the county maintained road. That section of road was a bit sketch too, but we prepared for it.
Then we hear about the road district and that they are going to fix the roads, blah blah, and it sounded like everything was a done deal. No options or discussion. So we followed along.
Something else to understand is that the Barkers had bought property on Ghost Canyon and were trying to sell their property on Saddleback Drive. The property on a crappy road and not in the district.
The Amundsons own many lots towards the end of Saddleback Drive. A really crappy section, at the end of a long crappy road. So, the fixing of the road increases their property values, as well.
At this meeting, they discussed- “Annex lots: Discussion was held regarding annexing the lots that access Saddleback Road into the Ghost Canyon Road District. Kent Johnson proposed a resolution to add these properties. 2nd by Pam Johnson. Vote conducted by original landowners. All ayes. No opposed. Resolution passed. (see attached resolution #2016-1).”
Take note here that a resolution was apparently proposed from the floor and voted on and passed and Voila… there was magically a printed resolution to pass around and sign.
Also take note that it was proposed and seconded by the Johnsons, a married couple who legally are considered one person under the law. One person both proposed and seconded a resolution from the floor.
Proposals from the floor can be discussed, but they cannot be voted on immediately, as proper notice must be provided to all concerned.(Check SDCL 1-25 -Open Meetings Laws- for more on this).
We’ll take a look at the ‘resolution’ in a second.
Collection of funds & work for 2016:
Discussion was held that Custer County will not be able to start collection of funds for our road district until next year. Per ordinance this amount can be determined by landowner, leve or per lot. The amount and any future changes of amount need to be determined and voted on by 5% of the landowners. We will need to open a bank account in the name of our road district for the future funds to be placed in.
“…this amount can be determined by landowner, leve or per lot.” Not quite. It seems they got the gist of the words used, but no real understanding of the process. Or in this case, processes. Because they are very different.
“The amount and any future changes of amount need to be determined and voted on by 5% of the landowners.” Again, not quite. 5% can start the petition, but you do need 51% to vote in favor.
“For 2016 this money can be collected by Kent Johnson (checks made to him) until an account can be established under the name of our road district. Johnson will give a receipt when landowners contribute. The money given this year is voluntary so it is yet to be determined how much will be collected. The board will check with contractors and find out what costs are.”
Mark Barker proposed a resolution that $200 per landowner be collected. 2nd by Matt Christensen. Vote conducted. All ayes. No opposed. Resolution passed. (see attached resolution #2016-2)
Another proposal from the floor, with a vote, and a magically appearing resolution to sign. Keep in mind that these proposals are being voted on by people who do not have a legal vote but whom have a great deal to gain personally upon their passing.
Name change: Discussion was held regarding changing the name from “Ghost Canyon Road District” to “SADDLEBACK ROAD DISTRICT” which is more fitting. Rose Barker will find out what procedures need to be done to complete this.
Resolution paperwork distributed and signed. Address and contact information collected.
And yet another proposal from the floor and vote and resolution already prepared. As you’ll see later, these resolutions were sketch and not legal and some had to be redrawn and resubmitted. But there was a great deal of paperwork that made it through to auditors office were accepted and filed, and were not legal.
And then they had another election because 2 of the 3 people nominated and voted in really didn’t want the job. In hindsight, those are exactly the type of people that you want in office. Anybody who really really wants a public office that bad, and for whom it is a step up, are not the people you want. More on that later.
I’m going to include some of the other attachments that came with these minutes. The original incorporation documents are not interesting and because they appear legal (pretty much the last time we see legal paperwork from this district) I’m not going to include them here. Maybe elsewhere, but trust me… they are boring.
There’s a second page to this petition, however it is just more places to fill out and has one signature of one landowner, who happens to be legal. So, nothing to see on that second page.
This petition has several double signatures, as married couples are considered one landowner if sharing a property. Also, as stated above, the Amundsons are not even legal voters yet. Yet, here they are voting on the rest of us being taxed to fix the road in front of their several properties.
Richard Demaret is also not a legal voter, as his property is not annexed yet.
The Christensens are one legal landowner, under law. This is somewhat typical of not only this road district, but I dare say most, as just about everybody involved with a local special district is just a regular person with zero training or education in this sort of thing.
Something to note, is this is the petition and fee that was voted on. It doesn’t appear to me to be a legal vote, but this petition never made it to the auditor’s file anyway. Nope… Hang on. I’ll get to that.
The other petition proposed and voted on and signed at this meeting was the one to annex several properties. Many of the properties whose owners are already voting on district decisions.
On the second page of this petition, you can see that we have a double signature, technically, as both Christensens signed. If I recall, this particular petition was kicked back by the county and had to be redone.
However what I wanted to note here is the verbiage at the top, “Undersigned landowners, currently a part of the Ghost Canyon Road District..” Legally, you need a 25% portion of the ‘to be annexed’ landowners to agree and sign, as well. However, as said, this petition was kicked back anyway, and we’ll look at the revised one later.
What I find interesting about this petition, and all petitions you can find on Sec of State website, is that they all seem to imply the signor is a registered voter in South Dakota. I’ll revisit this later, in discussing the mess of the 2020 trustee election.