Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning And Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners continue Elk Vale Road annexation and TIF request after drainage, traffic and city‑coordination questions
Summary
A developer seeking annexation of two small parcels and inclusion in a proposed tax‑increment financing district on Elk Vale Road had the petition continued to Feb. 4 so county planning, highway and the City of Rapid City can answer questions about drainage, traffic impacts and long‑term infrastructure responsibilities.
Developers seeking to annex two small parcels next to the Safeway shopping center for inclusion in a proposed tax‑increment financing (TIF) district left the Jan. 21 Pennington County Board of Commissioners meeting without approval. Commissioners continued the petition to Feb. 4 and asked staff to compile additional technical responses.
Developer Daniel Crow presented a TIF application and maps showing the proposed district boundary and described off‑site improvements expected to be funded through incremental tax revenues. He told the board the TIF application had been accepted by city reviewers and that the scope would finance wet and dry utilities, traffic management and curb‑and‑gutter work that the developer said were required to serve the parcels.
Commissioners and staff raised multiple concerns focused on downstream drainage and long‑term infrastructure responsibilities. Commissioner discussion emphasized the county’s interest in ensuring that annexation or an uncoordinated TIF would not shift disproportionate drainage and maintenance costs onto county‑maintained rights of way or properties outside the city limits. Commissioner Hancock requested input from Western Dakota Water District regarding potential drainage impacts through the racetrack area; Commissioner Roskinek and others asked for clear documentation of base assessed value and projected incremental values that inform the TIF’s capacity to retire debt.
Planning staff told the board they had provided the developer with a list of follow‑up questions; commissioners requested those answers be submitted in writing and coordinated with the City of Rapid City public works and highway departments. The board agreed to continue the item to Feb. 4 to allow staff and the developer to resolve those questions and to give Highway Department staff time to review traffic‑impact recommendations and identify any short‑term mitigation the county would require.
The board did not vote on annexation at the Jan. 21 meeting; the motion on the floor was to continue so additional technical information and intergovernmental commitments can be presented.
Ending: Commissioners requested a written Q&A from the developer, traffic‑study clarifications from the city, and coordination with the Highway Department and water district before the Feb. 4 continued hearing.
