Valley County workshop examines who owns and will maintain Daystar lake access points

Valley County commissioners, county staff and Daystar-area residents on Wednesday discussed ownership and upkeep of 12 platted lake-access points and two unpaved subdivision roads in the Daystar area, focusing on whether the county or private parties hold title or merely rights of use.

The discussion at a Valley County workshop centered on 12 mapped access points and two dirt-road segments in the subdivision; residents said title searches and a review of recorded plats left uncertainty about whether the county owns the ground or holds only public easements, and county staff described short-term options including annual permits and a memorandum of understanding to allow local maintenance.

Residents said the accesses have seen little formal maintenance for decades, and some access points show erosion or have been physically blocked by private work. “We’re really talking about who owns these, lake accesses,” said Amelia Lomas, a Daystar-area resident who presented the neighborhood’s concerns. She told commissioners that title searches performed by industry title companies and by residents had failed to produce deeds conveying ownership of the non-asphalted access areas to the county.

Jim Carlson, identified as president of the Donald George Loomis 3 Subdivision homeowners organization, said the subdivision plat dates to 1955 and that prior generations had understood the developer’s intent was to provide public access. “My grandfather gave easements for the roads in that subdivision back in 1982 that the commissioner signed off on,” Carlson said. Residents said a handful of the access points likely have soil-erosion issues and that some have been closed or modified when adjacent homeowners received permit approvals for retaining work.

Dan Kutz, Valley County road supervisor, described routine county practice for similar situations elsewhere in the county and said the county issues public-right-of-way permits. “We issue permits for people to work in the public right-of-way… It’s a simple application, and it’s $50 road permit,” Kutz said, adding that memoranda of understanding between the county and homeowners associations could set liability and maintenance expectations.

County staff noted the difference between a public dedication for use and legal ownership. “Donating to the public for use is different than donating to the county for ownership,” a county representative said, summarizing guidance from county legal review and case law discussions. Commissioners and staff agreed the county’s prosecuting attorney should provide a written opinion clarifying whether the recorded plats effect implied transfer of title in these specific lots so residents and the county can determine next steps.

Participants discussed practical, nonlitigious paths forward: a homeowners association could apply for an annual permit or enter an MOU with the county that would allow association contractors or volunteers to maintain the non-asphalted access points while indemnifying the county. “If you guys are interested in doing the BRR information, that’s great. Let’s work together,” a county staff member said, offering to help draft an MOU and to coordinate code-enforcement remedies for blocked rights of way.

Speakers said code enforcement, housed in planning and zoning, handles situations where private owners obstruct a recorded right-of-way. A commissioner noted the county maintains roughly 700 miles of dirt roads and that routine maintenance decisions must be weighed against available budget and staffing; road department staff warned that taking on maintenance responsibilities at one site can create hundreds of similar requests across the county.

Residents also described concern that external agencies reviewing permit applications — identified in the discussion as the Bureau (the transcript and speakers referenced the bureau and BOR) — will only work with a clear owner, and that unresolved ownership could delay or block shoreline stabilization work. Several residents said they preferred local control via an association-managed maintenance agreement rather than repeated individual permitting or a protracted quiet-title court action.

County officials agreed to obtain a written opinion from the prosecuting attorney’s office and to place a follow-up item on a future meeting agenda so the board can consider a decision after legal counsel’s advice. The board and residents left the workshop with two clear pathways: pursue an MOU and annual permitting allowing association-led maintenance, or pursue a quiet-title or judicial-declaratory process if legal clarity cannot be reached informally.

Votes at a glance

Earlier in the meeting, the board approved two indigent-claims payments: $2,000 (case referenced as 2024 N) and $675 (case referenced as 2024 MJ75). A motion to approve both claims was made and seconded; the motion carried with an affirmative vote recorded at the workshop.