Committee asks mayor, county attorney to research bond for unfinished Pomeroy Place road

Residents of the Pomeroy Place subdivision in Coffee County asked the Rural Roads and Bridges Committee on Feb. (date not specified) to investigate an unfinished subdivision road they say has been left without a final top coat and is deteriorating.

The request matters because residents said the uncompleted work has depressed property values and created safety hazards; they asked the county to determine whether a developer bond or other legal remedy could pay for completing the road. After discussion, the committee voted to direct the mayor to have the county attorney research the bond and report back in an open meeting.

At the meeting, a resident who identified herself as Annie and said she represented the 10 households in Pomeroy Place described the road as a dead end off Maple Springs Road and said developer Curtis Williamson began building the subdivision about 2005 but left before finishing drainage and a wearing/top coat. "I just kindly ask him to do the right thing and finish what he started," Annie said, presenting a signed letter from all 10 families and photographs of the pavement and temporary repairs.

Committee members and residents discussed the likely path for recourse. Committee members said a road becomes the county's responsibility only after the developer completes the work and the county accepts the road onto the official road list; until then, the county ordinarily cannot perform permanent work on it. A committee member said, "Legally, by state law, he can't work on it because it's not on the road list." Committee members also noted that if a bond had been posted and the developer defaulted, the bonding company could be liable to finish the work.

A motion to have the mayor and county attorney research whether a bond exists or whether other legal remedies are available, with a report back to the commission (committee members suggested a public report at the next full commission meeting in March), was made and seconded. The committee voted in favor; members said the county would begin the research but could not commit county funds to finish the road without further legal or budgetary action. "We'll start that research for you," the committee chair said after the vote.

Residents provided several specific details for the county's review: the subdivision contains 10 houses; the resident who spoke estimated roughly 200 feet of road needing a top coat and said the neighborhood has drainage inlets with damaged metal collars that are a safety hazard for children. The resident also said the homeowners collectively pay more than $200,000 a year in local taxes and estimated individual property devaluation at about $20,000 (figures presented by residents and not independently verified).

The committee recorded the action as research-only: the county will ask its attorney to examine records for any posted developer bond, the status of acceptance of the road onto the county road list, and possible avenues to require completion or recover costs from a bonding company or the developer. The motion and vote were recorded at the meeting; no county-funded repairs were approved at the session.

Next steps noted by committee members included: the mayor forwarding documents and the residents' letter to the county attorney; the attorney reporting findings in an open session (committee members suggested the full commission meeting in March); and residents checking their title and realtor records for any bond or disclosure recorded at purchase.

The committee did not set a formal timeline for the attorney's report beyond the suggestion of a public report to the commission in March. The committee emphasized that until the county accepts a road, state law and county policy generally limit county crews from making permanent improvements on private or unaccepted subdivision roads.