Dale Should Have Asked Grok
The ordinances you linked to for Custer County, state- ‘All public roads shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to County Road Specifications. Such construction and maintenance shall be subject to inspection by both the Highway and Planning Departments during construction and upon completion. Any public road that does not meet the above minimum standards shall not be approved for use.” This would be for ‘new’ roads, built AFTER this was passed, right?
Grok- Yes, the requirement in Custer County’s Ordinance #2—that all public roads shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to County Road Specifications, with construction and maintenance subject to inspection by the Highway and Planning Departments, and that any public road not meeting minimum standards shall not be approved for use—applies primarily to new roads built in connection with subdivisions or developments after the ordinance’s effective date (January 30, 2007, with possible later revisions). This is clear from the ordinance’s overall structure and language:
- The regulations are part of the subdivision process (e.g., preliminary and final plat approval, access map review), where the subdivider is responsible for installing improvements, including public roads, before final approval.
- Public roads in subdivisions (interior roads or those providing access) must be constructed to County Road Specifications during the development phase, with inspections during and upon completion.
- The ordinance focuses on ensuring that new subdivisions provide compliant access and infrastructure—e.g., “All public roads shall be constructed to County Road Specifications” appears in sections on low-, medium-, and high-density subdivisions, commercial/industrial subdivisions, and the general procedure for subdivision.
- There is no language mandating retroactive upgrades to existing roads that predate the ordinance or were already in place before a new subdivision is proposed.
Supporting details from related county documents:
- The separate Custer County Highway Department Road Specifications (approved in 2006 and revised as of 2022) explicitly state: “The following minimum construction standards shall apply to all newly constructed public roads within Custer County…” It notes that many pre-existing roads were built to lower standards and encourages improvements to follow the specs for public safety when possible, but does not require forced retrofits on existing roads outside new construction contexts.
In practice:
- If you’re proposing a new subdivision or dividing land that creates new public roads (or dedicates/uses public rights-of-way), those roads must meet the specs.
- For existing public roads (e.g., older county or section-line roads not tied to a new subdivision), the ordinance does not impose mandatory upgrades simply because the ordinance exists. Maintenance remains with adjacent landowners unless the county accepts it (often via a road district under SDCL 31-12A), and improvements might only be triggered by petitions, specific petitions for section-line highways, or when tied to new development requiring compliant access.
- If a new subdivision relies on an existing road for access, the ordinance requires that the connection meets specs or that the subdivider provides compliant access (e.g., via new construction if needed), but it doesn’t force wholesale retrofitting of the entire existing road.
This aligns with typical subdivision regulations under South Dakota law (SDCL Title 11, Chapter 2), which focus on new developments to promote safety and orderly growth without generally applying retroactively to pre-existing infrastructure unless explicitly stated.For your specific property or situation (e.g., if you’re subdividing or improving access), the best step is to contact the Custer County Planning Office (planning@custercountysd.com or 605-673-8174) or Highway Department for clarification—they can confirm based on your parcel and any proposed changes.
I’m not proposing anything. I live in a subdivision with a road district. The road District was incorporated in 2005 and the current board has spent many thousands of dollars to ‘widen’ the road and otherwise improve the road to meet county requirements. As a road district, it can only “construct and maintain’ roads, not improve.
We told them that, and they kept using the county requirements as an excuse to widen the road. In reality, we believe they were improving the road where their homes were, increasing property values.
Grok- Based on South Dakota Codified Laws (SDCL) Chapter 31-12A, which governs county road districts, the authority of a road district is explicitly to “construct roadways and maintain them” (SDCL 31-12A-21). However, South Dakota law and related Attorney General opinions draw a distinction between “maintenance” (ongoing upkeep, such as grading or snow removal to preserve existing conditions) and “repair” (fixing specific damage, often subsumed under maintenance) versus “construction” or “improvement” (enhancing or upgrading roads, such as widening, paving a gravel road, or adding features like guardrails). atg.sd.gov
This distinction is critical: While road districts have broad powers to levy taxes and expend funds for their purposes (SDCL 31-12A-21 and 31-12A-23), proceedings for “constructing” roads—which includes improvements—must follow specific statutory processes outlined in SDCL 31-12A-25. These incorporate municipal-style procedures (e.g., from SDCL Chapters 9-43 and 9-45) for special assessments, borrowing, bonding, and public hearings or approvals. Simple maintenance or repairs can typically be funded through general district levies without these extra steps, but improvements require them to ensure transparency and fairness in cost allocation.
Widening a road, as you described, aligns with what the South Dakota Attorney General has classified as an “improvement” in analogous contexts (e.g., for townships under SDCL Chapter 31-13, where paving or structural enhancements are treated separately from maintenance). If your road district’s board proceeded with widening without adhering to the required proceedings for construction/improvements (e.g., special assessments or voter input at annual meetings), it could constitute an improper use of district funds, as general maintenance budgets are not intended for such enhancements. southdakotaroaddistricts.com
Regarding county requirements: SDCL Chapter 31-12A does not mandate that road districts conform to Custer County’s road specifications (e.g., from the 2007 Ordinance #2 or Highway Department specs) for existing roads. These county standards primarily apply to new subdivisions or constructions proposed after the ordinance’s adoption, not retroactively to pre-existing roads in established districts like yours (formed in 2005). Road districts operate as independent political subdivisions with their own authority over internal roads, and there’s no statutory requirement to “upgrade” to county levels unless the district petitions for county adoption of the road (which would transfer maintenance responsibility but isn’t automatic). If the board cited county requirements as justification without a clear legal basis (e.g., no pending subdivision approval or county takeover), the expenditures for widening could indeed be unnecessary and potentially unauthorized.
In summary, if the work went beyond repair/maintenance into improvements without following SDCL 31-12A-25 procedures, and wasn’t required by county law for your existing setup, it fits the description of wasted money from a legal standpoint. For your specific district’s records (e.g., meeting minutes, budgets, or assessments), you could request them under South Dakota’s open records laws (SDCL Chapter 1-27), or consult the State Auditor’s office for an audit if misuse is suspected.southdakotaroaddistricts.com
While the Apple Dumplings could have simply asked Grok, or any other AI, or really anybody with a 5th grade reading comprehension, we are still talking about people who argued with me when I stated in a county commissioners meeting, that the road district was incorporated in 2005, and they insisted it was 2016, and then literally entered into evidence/exhibits, the document that proves I was right and they were wrong.