Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Government Actions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pipestone County approves home abatement, establishes mail ballot board and corrects parcel classification
Summary
At its May 12 meeting the Pipestone County board approved a home abatement application for Alan Cman, adopted a resolution creating an absentee/mail ballot board (Res. 239226), and corrected a parcel classification for Devon Schultz; commissioners also received budget and roads updates.
Pipestone County commissioners on May 12 approved a home abatement application, established an absentee/mail ballot board and corrected a tax classification error for one parcel.
The board opened a public hearing for an abatement application submitted by Alan Cman and moved to approve the application. Staff described that the assessor’s prepared estimate resulted in a net value stated in the record as "2042,900" and that the county share of the estimated abatement was reported verbally in the meeting transcript as "700 month $53 annually." Following the public hearing the board approved the abatement by motion (recorded as resolution 59‑20 in the meeting).
Separately, the board adopted Resolution 239226 to establish an absentee/mail ballot board and authorized the auditor‑treasurer to designate deputies and election judges to staff that board. The motion carried on voice vote.
Staff also reported that a parcel for Devon Schultz (parcel 010290400) had been incorrectly classified as nonhomestead; staff said the error would be corrected and the resulting abatement difference recorded in the minutes as "2676." The board approved the correction and asked staff to complete processing prior to the tax deadline.
Commissioners received routine updates on county roads and maintenance projects (seal coat aggregate, overlays, code 56 patching) and a first‑quarter budget review that noted higher ambulance expenditures and lower ambulance income in the quarter; staff said state grant dollars and other reimbursements were expected to mitigate the variance.
No appeals or requests for further county action on the election or abatement items were recorded at the meeting; staff said they would follow up with details on a miscellaneous departmental expenditure exceeding $100,000 upon request.
