Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuisance Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After years of lingering cases, Pennington County directs ordinance changes and a plan for nuisance abatement
Summary
Commissioners pressed planning, highway and the state’s attorney for clearer nuisance-enforcement procedures after long-running cases such as a Kim Street property; staff proposed certified-mail notices, a 14‑day response window, an option to bring cases to the commission for abatement decisions and coordinated work with Rapid City on 1‑mile jurisdictional issues.
Pennington County commissioners on Nov. 18 spent more than an hour on nuisance-enforcement policy after repeated constituent complaints about properties with accumulated junk vehicles, debris and fire damage.
Commissioner Jerry Durr described field visits and said some cases have lingered for years. "An open nuisance case on this property has been in existence for 4 years, 9 months, 9 days," he said of the Kim Street case, noting public-safety concerns and blocked access during hazardous weather.
Planning staff and the state's attorney outlined the county’s current referral and enforcement practice: planning documents a violation and sends an initial notice; the state's attorney's office issues compliance letters, then a verified petition and affidavit in court if the owner does not comply. Tyler Sobczak of the state’s attorney’s office warned that coordination with Rapid City must respect prosecutorial boundaries, citing risks like double prosecution where jurisdictions overlap, and recommended a memorandum of understanding for joint areas.
Staff proposed operational changes to speed enforcement: use of certified mail so the county has proof of notice; a 14‑day deadline for the property owner to contact staff with a 'get‑well' plan; scheduling a hearing before the board for cases that fail to meet a deadline so the commission can choose abatement or referral to the state's attorney; and clearer contractor cost estimates for abatement. Planning provided contractor cleanup estimates for the Kim Street property of about $24,000–$28,000 and noted an internal estimate of approximately $14,000 for smaller abatement work.
Planning Director Britney Hand said draft nuisance-ordinance amendments are scheduled for the planning commission and noted some language around right‑of‑way obstructions may duplicate state law; staff intends to refine the draft and bring amendments back to the commission after coordination with the highway department and the state's attorney. The board requested that staff return with a specific action plan on the Kim Street property at the next meeting.
What's next: Planning and the state's attorney will refine ordinance language and propose implementation steps (certified notice, 14‑day contact window, hearing scheduling) and bring an action plan for Kim Street to a future commission meeting. Commissioners also directed staff to pursue an MOU or other coordination with Rapid City about enforcement in the one‑mile extraterritorial area.
Provenance: The nuisance discussion and staff proposals were presented and debated across SEG 2960–4160; Kim Street specifics and cost estimates appear at SEG 3072–3160 and 3580–3645.
