[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6345522,"mediaKeyId","2249046-7a5e7250965174241578f3a55c5796b9","parentId",2249046,"title","Votes at a glance: Clay County commission actions on infrastructure, fees and grants","audioSeconds",2452,"startMs",848000,"endMs",3300000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2249046-7a5e7250965174241578f3a55c5796b9&start=848&end=3300","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2249046-7a5e7250965174241578f3a55c5796b9/thumbnail_848000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6345522/Clay-County/South-Dakota/Votes-at-a-glance-Clay-County-commission-actions-on-infrastructure-fees-and-grants","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345522-3dcb43d679f75b8bd831bfa35b8efc5b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138392&Signature=icleueBTw1XpGSZHnl0qIBjCWtQ5tkSxPWFe8BPnhWsBFEmvH1BG~zFKXZwXzfaqn3rfV0a19JKZyumnfFbI6oNJDMr6kOBBqBGad4QkDrzx1HDiLlPjATVQpqnR8D5jeJdYzip1diAoUqe4hoKi~iYWemExlmHDIMCyaJf71NUjZ76PpHJCDYm8Ic555B6gCJyBEL4u5ua0xistg3H2fzwA20QhW6AYhycQkoTS7T5k6ak7w-Hi7Q2VWYfyAHIpHopVOcQ7ke35OCI6jgAteZk9213JaiRd8r9tGrTNfGNY28jbnevUGL41zk2at8ZolG7L-kw-8GSNHs0vmlPITQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Clay County, SD","date","2025-02-07T20:56:29Z","article","The Clay County Board of Commissioners took the following formal actions during the meeting (motion, mover/second if recorded, and outcome). Where the transcript did not name a mover or second, the motion text is reported verbatim and the recorded vote is summarized.

1) Rural Access Infrastructure Fund awards (motion recorded in meeting)
Motion: “I make a motion that we we fund the Pleasant Valley 70 3 Thousand 3 Hundred And 2 18 Cents and the Prairie Center at 43,000.”
Outcome: Approved by voice vote.

2) Gordon Anderson right-of-way application
Motion: “I move to approve the application.”
Outcome: Approved by voice vote.

3) Weight-limit resolution (Resolution 2025-03)
Motion: Move to approve Resolution 2025-03 (annual weight-limit resolution) and authorize the chair to sign the letter to the state enforcement authority.
Outcome: Approved by roll call. Recorded votes in the transcript: Gilbertson — Aye; Teasley — Aye; Brady — Aye; Graylob — Aye; Lockler — Aye. Motion passes.

4) Bridge reinspection program resolution (Resolution 2025-04) and vendor selection
Motion: Move to approve Resolution 2025-04 and select Vertical Operations to conduct bridge reinspections.
Outcome: Approved by roll call. Roll-call votes recorded in the transcript were all “Aye.”

5) FEMA emergency reimbursement acknowledgement and related action
Information recorded: County received an initial FEMA payment of $5,200 for emergency barricade overtime; staff to pursue larger FEMA reimbursements and request an extension for Tabernacle Bridge (CR 309) project deadlines with the state.
Outcome: Informational; staff direction to pursue required extensions and claims.

6) Surplus declaration (old iron/aluminum bridge items)
Motion: Move to declare old iron/aluminum bridge items surplus.
Outcome: Approved by voice vote.

7) LEPC grant authorization
Motion: Move to approve and authorize County staff member Lane to sign the LEPC grant agreement (amount recorded in meeting as approximately $9,497.50).
Outcome: Approved by voice vote.

8) Fingerprint fee amendment
Motion: Move to amend the fingerprinting fee from the previously listed amount to $20.
Outcome: Approved by voice vote.

9) Custodial contract fee (city contract for PD side cleaning)
Motion: Move to set the custodial fee for the city contract at $14,100 annually, billable quarterly.
Outcome: Approved by voice vote.

10) Vouchers, agenda and minutes approvals
Motions: Routine approvals of agenda, minutes and vouchers.
Outcome: Approved by voice vote.

11) Executive session and adjournment
Motions: Enter executive session for personnel and contractual matters; exit executive session and adjourn.
Outcome: Approved by voice votes.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","January 14, 2025 County Commission Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The Clay County Board of Commissioners approved multiple routine and substantive items including two rural-structure awards, two county resolutions, a vendor selection for bridge reinspections, fee adjustments, a small LEPC grant authorization and several administrative motions.","taxTitle","Clay County, South Dakota","taxId",55676,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6345527,"County engineers describe flood damage and bridge repairs after inspections; low-cost deck treatments recommended for several spans",1968,1065000,3033000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2249046-7a5e7250965174241578f3a55c5796b9&start=1065&end=3033","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2249046-7a5e7250965174241578f3a55c5796b9/thumbnail_1065000.jpg","/articles/6345527/Clay-County/South-Dakota/County-engineers-describe-flood-damage-and-bridge-repairs-after-inspections-low-cost-deck-treatments-recommended-for-several-spans","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345527-03abf2fbafaced8a6ae1fa66954352ec/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138392&Signature=TaCc28Me0g21u3wNm-45fffllPpFsUjtW0Ub85KxI0Rh-TxpGdKBSg7Hh6UGYg3T8ZtXEmNsqZIh13wrjt2FP7Ja8oGlxrZecKfxV0VLMnDmK-qzjUa-QBMrAoZ6VxGo8JoV3GV376tTKkFyvXxHp8hzhLcgcWe5~AQ0yt-KBPMV7ib5OOWoRc20bOnYbSpHGTFip23v6uNq46XfHb3V1xIyuidCXo~qBgFE7YHjp2fQdXvFjOqEr-rbVeh3XzNg30P4ahH3G13KBtZgq9~yFgUWTHPYfqdv1B8NTJtrwJs2vkdKVWJZs-txQyy~qkCW8umgN20O9JyFwy8HDBEAQQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Vanessa Victor, a bridge inspector with Altaic (consulting firm), presented the county’s recent bridge inspection results and damage assessment after this year’s flooding. Victor told commissioners the firm inspected the county’s larger structures on a two-year cycle and that the inspection inventory this round included roughly 60 structures that meet federal inspection thresholds.

Victor said four structures were graded in the poorer condition categories and four were in the “fair” category. She recommended preventive maintenance such as epoxy deck seal for multiple structures and noted that epoxy sealing or a low-slab overlay can extend life and delay more costly replacement. “If we're looking to bridge and it has a bad deck, obviously we want to fix that deck before we have all the work deterioration that we have to replace that,” Victor said.

Victor described four structures that sustained notable flood damage; several will be candidates for repair projects to be put out to bid this year. One timber structure was recommended for removal because a nearby structure renders it redundant and the timber element has deteriorated to the point that continued repair is not cost-effective. Another structure has exposed pile and scour; Victor said it cannot remain in that condition before the next spring runoff.

On maintenance options, Victor said a low-slab overlay for a full bridge replacement would run in the “about 500,000, 6 hundred thousand” range (the figure was given by the presenter as a ballpark), while epoxy deck seal costs significantly less and is expected to last 10–15 years in many cases. She also discussed a newer “fog seal” product the state is testing that is cheaper than epoxy but has less long-term track record.

Several structures also were recommended for temporary load posting. Victor recommended a 14-ton posting for one structure where timber caps and decking had deteriorated and said the county will reinspect that structure next year to check the cap condition.

Victor urged the county to consider hydraulic studies for certain flood-impacted crossings before full replacement, because altered hydrology can change appropriate crossing design and could make a replacement more expensive. “Ideally a full hydraulic study and … bridge replacement, but your bridge replacement for this would be skewed… it’s gonna be twice as fast,” she said, referring to higher cost and complexity when a replacement must be skewed to accommodate channel changes.

County staff reported the county has received an initial FEMA payment of $5,200 to cover overtime associated with emergency barricades during flooding; larger FEMA reimbursements are expected for eligible projects. Staff also noted one FEMA project (Tabernacle Bridge on County Road 309) remains open and requires a state extension request because the county will not meet the original February 15 deadline.

Victor’s firm also inspected smaller culverts and sub-20-foot structures (about 15 of them were inspected) and recommended signing and minor safety measures for several of those crossings. Commissioners and staff discussed sequencing maintenance to preserve sufficiency ratings and postpone more expensive replacements.

","A consultant presented results of countywide bridge inspections after recent flooding, identifying four bridges in poor condition, several candidates for epoxy deck sealing, and a small number of bridges likely to require replacement or removal. The county also received a small FEMA reimbursement for emergency work.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6345532,"Clay County approves Rural Access Infrastructure grants for Pleasant Valley and Prairie Center",929,133000,1062000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2249046-7a5e7250965174241578f3a55c5796b9&start=133&end=1062","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2249046-7a5e7250965174241578f3a55c5796b9/thumbnail_133000.jpg","/articles/6345532/Clay-County/South-Dakota/Clay-County-approves-Rural-Access-Infrastructure-grants-for-Pleasant-Valley-and-Prairie-Center","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345532-fdc23f01e1ba81dd04ff1d5ec57998dc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138392&Signature=AtX24NZhEfE4Novj0yLnM9oxCFPBT68-ZY0sSoTbIGsBbMVbFFSAUPegjaJZfz0fYtX0xChTisYH46yOVqFKSSNGl0KLKPLlSwL3zqD-adEnQn9yQZIPkVNfIX0s5nAdixvpog9hxoUJwLkHL8eXTmEjOvzGwJMWHxVDmQi-sI~C1VJhsRClW1eatHTw2~Gve6FpzxBGgFEyJb-tdGKNUMo5GJQK9I90jk9a-8uMHXb536XmcDDHUlIUdoM3o8gvGDUSbn8c7BbmJif0zgVUhXPL50ZSphle89-AeSFbGnt-exGxAlznZ1HalL1N5zWaVZDadhsMcZ6dgTWE9F4QjA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Clay County Board of Commissioners voted to fund two township bridge projects from the Rural Access Infrastructure Fund, approving an award for Pleasant Valley and an award for Prairie Center.

County commissioners said the awards were chosen based on the program criteria in the state's handbook and visible public-safety needs at inspected sites. The motion approved Pleasant Valley’s application and Prairie Center’s application; Prairie Center’s request was described in the meeting as $43,000 and the Pleasant Valley amount was stated in the motion as “70 3 Thousand 3 Hundred And 2 18 Cents” in the transcript.

Commissioners discussed the handbook criteria (listed in the meeting packet) they said they must consider: traffic use of the highway (residential, commercial, recreational), length of detour if the project is not completed, number of residences/farms served, whether the highway terminates in a field entrance/single residence, public safety, hydrological impact, project cost, and the township’s contribution or local match. One commissioner said Prairie Center “certainly seemed to have some public safety issues” and noted the application listed about 20 residents affected.

Star Township representative Ron Peterson spoke during public comment to explain local work on a 3-ton timber bridge the township replaced with its own funds and asked the county to consider assistance for other local needs. “We put it in and, and you sound pretty favorable last year. We, as a board… decided that safety was just too high a concern. We spent our own funds to replace that structure with our own money,” Peterson said. Commissioners thanked him for addressing safety and noted that township and county roads are interconnected.

Commissioners discussed geographic equity and prior awards; one commissioner said Garfield Township received a very large award the prior year and that influenced the present choices. Commissioners also discussed the minimum 20% local match requirement for the program and the possibility that a grantee unable to meet the match could be required to return funds and prompt reallocation in a subsequent year.

After discussion, a motion was made and seconded to fund the Pleasant Valley application (amount recorded in the meeting as stated above) and the Prairie Center application at $43,000. The board voted in favor; the motion passed by voice vote. Commissioners noted the awards would use most of the available fund balance for this round and that roughly $4,000 would remain for the next cycle.

The board’s chair also encouraged support for state-level reauthorization of the program: a commissioner noted local state Sen. Sydney Davis had expressed interest in renewing funding and urged citizens to contact legislators if they want the program continued.

Next steps: staff will record awards and follow the guidance in the rural access handbook about documentation of local match and project eligibility. Unfunded applicants were told the county would hold their applications for future consideration.

","The Clay County Board of Commissioners voted to award two townships funds from the Rural Access Infrastructure Fund, approving a Pleasant Valley award and a Prairie Center award after reviewing project condition, public-safety concerns and handbook criteria.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Clay County commission actions on infrastructure, fees and grants

County engineers describe flood damage and bridge repairs after inspections; low-cost deck treatments recommended for several spans

Clay County approves Rural Access Infrastructure grants for Pleasant Valley and Prairie Center