Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Road Discontinuance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Todd County fiscal court advances discontinuance of Powell/Pow Lake Road after hearing draws no public comment
Summary
Todd County fiscal court held a public hearing on removing Powell And Road (CDR 1370) from county maintenance with no public comment, then moved an ordinance (25-1) through first reading after staff recommended discontinuance, with a unanimous roll-call for first reading and a second reading scheduled.
Todd County fiscal court held a brief public hearing on removing Powell And Road, CDR 1370, from county maintenance and received no public comments before adjourning the hearing and later advanced an ordinance for first reading that staff recommended for discontinuance.
Court officials opened a public hearing on the removal of Powell And Road (CDR 1370). “Are there any public comments on removing this road to county maintenance? Hearing none, I'll entertain motion to adjourn this hearing,” the presiding judge said; the court adjourned the hearing by voice vote.
The court later took up roads business under a separate agenda item. County staff members Chad Hampton and Lillard Reggor presented a written report and recommended discontinuing the roadway. According to their report, “we find that this discontinuance ... would result in no inconvenience to the public and that the road should therefore be discontinued,” the staff reported to the court.
Following that recommendation, the court moved and approved the first reading of Ordinance 25-1, described in the packet as discontinuing “Pow Lake Road.” The court conducted a roll-call confirmation during the first reading; Paul Scarblane, Clark Turner, Clark Oliver, Clark Brookshire, Clark Bryant and the presiding judge each answered yes when called.
The court scheduled the ordinance for a second reading at the next stated business date described in the meeting as the “20 eighth,” at which point the court will consider final action or further comment.
The discontinuance items appeared in two distinct parts of the meeting record: an initial removal hearing with no public comment, and a later roads agenda item that contained the staff report recommending discontinuance and the court’s first-reading action. No members of the public spoke in favor of or against the removal during the hearing; the court did not receive other written public testimony on the record at the meeting.
If the court adopts Ordinance 25-1 on second reading, that action would remove the listed road from county maintenance per the court’s process; the meeting record does not include a subsequent final-adoption vote.
