[{"_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",6171421,"mediaKeyId","5394146-280c237b5691fa15d7a33adf24138107","parentId",5394146,"title","County staff outline courthouse improvements and new law‑enforcement center costs; officials expect city to share operating costs","audioSeconds",1687,"startMs",1633000,"endMs",3320000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5394146-280c237b5691fa15d7a33adf24138107&start=1633&end=3320","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5394146-280c237b5691fa15d7a33adf24138107/thumbnail_1633000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6171421/Clay-County/South-Dakota/County-staff-outline-courthouse-improvements-and-new-lawenforcement-center-costs-officials-expect-city-to-share-operating-costs","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6171421-ab1d458c826b4dd887a3344705ac55e1/orig.mp4?Expires=1777166846&Signature=gTajI~j5I4zz-m20ETJKE44KCcWqDkFuSgKIIGvARk76Aj8vWvQTuyyRlkeFZ4folF-K~zVXmfi~zdllVvKmnIPzET5Jg72hcvI-AQLzLdiyPMBaDUuoN~doFr0BZqh~ZC0J6WpyneG77YbdMer3gx8Jalv244ofg7RDHx-zFI6Czvt0bk~iuTukTdQzqQvNugy4XQkc6EvAiQS3s~XQGpIANX-i7faimCCItdRj79HTiF7PEWNMkIbDXGx2v-nC14NkhZPRB-iYH6f3otUR0J2yLtzgfge52xbHIrGNlrTelYSXoL6EVagvw1sCDp5aE1IkiL7ZklCT7ef6-mfacQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Clay County, SD","date","2025-07-15T20:38:19Z","article","County facilities staff presented a set of anticipated courthouse repairs and a draft 2026 budget for the new Law Enforcement Center, telling the Board of County Commissioners the county will budget the full operating cost but expects the city to reimburse a share under a yet‑to‑finalized agreement.

Facilities staff (identified in the meeting as Scott) said an earlier transcription error added an extra zero in a building‑improvement line; he corrected the packet to show $140,000 for a particular item after staff cross‑checks. Staff also explained a larger $915,000 renovation estimate appears in the packet as part of a combined project total; that total includes courtroom work and law‑enforcement remodels that staff said will be reimbursed through a grant or interlocal funding on the revenue side when appropriate.

On the new Law Enforcement Center, the facilities presenter walked through staffing and operating assumptions. The draft LEC budget assumes on‑site staffing and includes wages, utilities and custodial supplies; staff said the initial estimate reflected two‑and‑a‑half staff‑equivalents (the presenter said he budgeted a half‑time share of his own time for LEC oversight) and that utilities and repairs would be tracked separately by site once the county finalizes guidance from the legislative auditor. Staff described a likely cost‑split formula of roughly one‑third county and two‑thirds city for shared building operating costs and said the city and county are discussing a reimbursement formula but have not finalized terms.

Facilities staff listed anticipated 2026 building improvements for multiple county facilities: a First Floor handrail, interior painting for several offices, sidewalk and asphalt repairs at the 4‑H building, canopy and roof repairs, retaining wall repairs, new windows washing cycle, pipe insulation in a boiler room, and installing an improved roof access at the 4‑H site. The presenter also noted a rooftop ERV repair estimate the county received for a unit barely out of warranty and that staff planned to solicit other contractors for a better quote.

Commissioners and staff discussed which furniture and equipment purchases belong to the courthouse project versus departmental budgets, confirming that most furnishings for the courthouse and offices to move into a remodeled space will be charged to the larger renovation project rather than individual departmental operating lines. The facilities presenter said most one‑time building‑fit out items for the courthouse remodeling are intended to be part of a single capital project and budgeted together.

On implementation timing, staff said some items are one‑time capital outlays (roof and canopy repairs, roof access) while others are routine maintenance. Staff and commissioners noted uncertainty in the final renovation scope and reiterated that final costs will be clearer after July 28 when architectural firms return scored proposals; commissioners discussed the risk that the $600,000 estimate in the conceptual design could be higher or lower once firms submit final scopes and prices.

Ending: Staff will reconcile the building improvement and furniture lines with the capital project accounting and provide updated cost estimates after the upcoming proposal review; commissioners asked staff to continue refining the LEC budget and to document the proposed county/city cost‑split for later review.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","July 10, 2025 County Commission Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","County facilities staff told commissioners the 2026 budget for courthouse improvements and the new Law Enforcement Center includes a mix of one‑time capital repairs and ongoing operating costs; staff said the city is expected to reimburse part of the LEC’s operating costs under a pending agreement.","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},6171425,"Assessor outlines 2026 budget increase tied to software conversion, licensing and training costs",1433,174000,1607000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5394146-280c237b5691fa15d7a33adf24138107&start=174&end=1607","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5394146-280c237b5691fa15d7a33adf24138107/thumbnail_174000.jpg","/articles/6171425/Clay-County/South-Dakota/Assessor-outlines-2026-budget-increase-tied-to-software-conversion-licensing-and-training-costs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6171425-c8cb9193d16925c54d2e17cba9df5d3e/orig.mp4?Expires=1777166846&Signature=AeMRz2FF~pzPa3T8yN2Q9evjPSIxVLq-eBRkRGq1xP06z-rKzRGolK7yW8TXW45WRyEq9afhbfFSP3edRMNOd8h1EUukU6Tjp~qdGMH-lmohpdMBz-AK0QXuBUNL2-3ioHlLZ9SnJCHDtAtZyzP6Ru7l5TE~PAtBgwIGi1z9vUacgri8JcZpPX2tGz9ULNzog2tEBeg4WZG33jBl91Yjnh-hDGXrQ38zxNn6WDV3Bo9sHIVHpGDXrWiSOCU8BVio1BaCPwPN0d47Y4WXy3oLmFckjRgYLiiUDjccW560wmGR-cCOIzyYlox61KvqsltuqIbX62ZOlReAn83rkKzD1A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The county assessor’s office presented its 2026 budget request Thursday, telling the Board of County Commissioners the request includes a substantial one‑time conversion charge for a new, integrated property valuation and management platform and higher recurring licensing fees for mapping and valuation software. The office said the changes reflect a multi‑year migration that will temporarily increase IT and software spending while reducing duplicated work across older systems.

The assessor’s presentation centered on a shift from multiple historic programs to a single vendor product referred to in the packet as “Catalyst.” The assessor said the vendor’s first‑year conversion cost in the packet is about $101,000; ongoing annual hosting and licensing costs are expected to be substantially lower, roughly $30,000 plus an additional cost table license (Marshall & Swift) that the office estimated at about $8,000 in the first year. The office also budgeted for continued, possibly duplicate, costs during the migration year because some older systems must remain active until conversion and verification are complete.

The office briefed commissioners on several specific software items. It listed ProVal — the current valuation software — at roughly $12,000 for the Canvas module in 2026; the assessor said that cost may be unnecessary after full migration. Mapping software provider Esri is moving customers from desktop to cloud user types; the assessor said the office’s three main user licenses are moving from about $300 per license to about $500 per license under the vendor’s new cloud pricing. Beacon and Pictometry contract lines were budgeted with a 3% contract increase; the assessor said combined subscriber and partner revenue from those services historically returns about $16,000 to the general fund but that the office prefers to budget full gross costs on the expenditure side.

On staffing, the assessor said software that streamlines workflows reduces the need for additional employees; the office is currently below recommended staffing by national standards for parcel count, but the assessor argued the software will replace roughly “half a person, or more” of workload. The assessor also kept a modest contingency for temporary office coverage during conferences or school periods and preserved a small repairs and maintenance line for emergency computer repairs.

The assessor described migration risks and timeline constraints: data formats and older sketching stored as images (rather than data strings) complicate automated transfer and may require manual verification and data entry. The office said they hold monthly meetings with the vendor, maintain a migration “sandbox” for testing, and expect the conversion could take anywhere from 18 months to several years depending on data issues; the previous migration the assessor referenced took about seven years.

The assessor additionally requested membership in the International Association of Assessing Officers to reduce per‑person continuing‑education costs and noted increases in workshop and school fees that drive modest travel and training increases in the budget.

Commissioners asked for clarification about software ownership, cancellation rights and the timing of conversion payments; the assessor said the county owns the data in the legacy system and that some subscription contracts are annual and payable in December, allowing, in some cases, mid‑year cancellation if migration completes earlier. The office said it prefers to budget conservatively for 2026 to avoid mid‑year shortfalls and to preserve uninterrupted access to valuation tools required for certification and notices.

The discussion included operational trade‑offs: the assessor said the integrated product will eliminate double entry, reduce manual work and be cheaper than hiring multiple additional staff and that the migration costs should fall out of the budget over two to three years if the conversion finishes on schedule.

Ending: The assessor left the budget lines for software and training in place for 2026 and asked the commission to consider the migration strategy as an investment that will lower staffing pressure over time; commissioners pressed staff to follow up on detailed contract terms and the expected timing of recurring costs after the first conversion year.","The county assessor’s office told the Board of County Commissioners the office’s 2026 budget request rises mainly because of a one‑time software conversion to a single property‑valuation system, higher mapping license fees and continuing professional training needs; the office said the conversion should reduce staff workload over time.",{"_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},6171416,"Commissioners approve $750,000 opt‑out resolution as budget authority while discussing reserves and timelines",60,6148000,6208000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5394146-280c237b5691fa15d7a33adf24138107&start=6148&end=6208","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5394146-280c237b5691fa15d7a33adf24138107/thumbnail_6148000.jpg","/articles/6171416/Clay-County/South-Dakota/Commissioners-approve-750000-optout-resolution-as-budget-authority-while-discussing-reserves-and-timelines","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6171416-09578770c8fe06addf66ce3db9a6c203/orig.mp4?Expires=1777166846&Signature=GQuuV~QNoGyNA~h6AIIjJWF1Cs9UaBeykQ5mpu7-k7nI1oBMA~9PbqucQR6XFmyvaZrsBb1PCRjARKDIFnY8W2CuIWqxvJJH7ZJl5Kgmmf2bdweptjne9sR5lTJ9YKukdJeGvSo9syHX1JHRyefLSy0TDu8jLoV-uWiZF3xqnxjgnMc4Bf7W6CqwkT~e5bLgTJl7x7ObN28dB34vaZInin2tlG-RGnxUUAa8Fnr55B2z2TU142ovreSy6ecXlC41QwIiFpAG4sE728g5Fwb4f6l6kNIQeDBGKW1jsNQYSYCX3YkKs3dKIJUHYqGhuHZ6sA~tzYUtYobcRVGGUOKGjA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to approve Resolution 2025‑20 establishing an opt‑out levy authority of $750,000 for the 2026 budget. Commissioners approved the measure after staff and commissioners discussed county cash reserves, the timing of a courtroom renovation RFP and statutory deadlines that affect when an opt‑out can appear on a ballot or be referred by petition.

A motion to approve “Resolution 2025‑20 for $750,000” passed on a roll call vote. Commissioners recorded ayes from Gilbertson, Teasey, Brady, Brayler and Mokler; the clerk announced the motion passed and asked commissioners to sign the resolution. The commission noted that adopting an opt‑out establishes budget authority only; if later the commission or staff determine they do not need the full amount, they can choose not to include the entire opt‑out amount in the final levy. Commissioners also noted that if the public petitions to refer the opt‑out to a vote, that would trigger a special‑election cost and could affect timing for project decisions.

Staff discussed the county’s cash balance and reserve targets in the context of the opt‑out. On the departmental spreadsheets and cash balance estimates, staff said the county was roughly $410,000 short of meeting a 15% reserve target under the presented numbers. Staff estimated that reaching a 15% target would require roughly $1.6–1.8 million in on‑hand balances after accounting for built‑in statutory cushions; the meeting also referenced a statutory “lehi 5%” cushion figure (about $600,000) included in the provisional budget spreadsheet. Officials urged caution because final project costs for the courtroom remodel were unknown and could be higher than a conceptual $600,000 estimate.

Before the opt‑out vote, the commission briefly entered executive session to discuss contractual and legal matters under the executive‑session citation referenced on the record as “1‑25‑2 subsection 3.” The commission returned to open session and then approved the opt‑out resolution.

Ending: Commissioners signed the opt‑out resolution and directed staff to continue refining budget numbers, to monitor RFP scoring on July 28 and to provide final budget figures in time for the statutory budget adoption schedule; they reiterated the opt‑out is a budget authority and can be reduced or removed later if project bids come in lower or if the commission chooses not to use full authority.","The Board of County Commissioners voted to approve a resolution to set an opt‑out levy authority of $750,000 for the upcoming budget, after extended discussion about cash reserves, timing of a courtroom remodel RFP and state filing deadlines; commissioners noted the opt‑out provides budget authority but does not compel full spending.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

County staff outline courthouse improvements and new law‑enforcement center costs; officials expect city to share operating costs

Assessor outlines 2026 budget increase tied to software conversion, licensing and training costs

Commissioners approve $750,000 opt‑out resolution as budget authority while discussing reserves and timelines