Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comments Safety And Conservancy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press commissioners on intersection safety and Lake of the Woods conservancy petition; attorney flags pending court hearing
Summary
Public commenters urged action on speeding and intersection safety at 4th and Olive Road; a second commenter raised questions about a Lake of the Woods conservancy petition and signature validation, and county counsel said a court hearing was scheduled.
Several members of the public addressed the board during the Jan. 20 public-comment period with two substantive topics: a traffic-safety concern at the 4th and Olive Road intersection and questions about a pending conservancy-district petition for Lake of the Woods.
Traffic safety, 4th & Olive Road: Sharon Rozinski, a resident at 4057 Olive Road, described repeated speeding and near-miss incidents at a two-way stop where she and neighbors said the roadway is hilly and sight lines are poor. Rozinski said residents had circulated a petition and requested the county take action such as speed-limit signs, a radar speed-trailer or converting the two-way stop to a four-way stop. Commissioners said the sheriff's office handles enforcement and noted the county can deploy a speed-trailer as a warning; staff said they would provide Rozinski the results from a traffic counter deployed in November and investigate options with highway staff before returning with recommendations.
Lake of the Woods conservancy petition: Marvin (Marv) Hillion and other residents raised questions about two competing petitions submitted to the county auditor to form a Lake of the Woods conservancy district. They asked how private easements and accesses would be treated for taxation and whether certain signatories should qualify as “lakefront property owners.” County Attorney Sean said the matter is the subject of a court proceeding: a hearing was scheduled for the next morning in Superior Court 3, and the petitioners' attorney filed a motion to continue. The attorney explained the county is not a party but had interested-party notice in earlier proceedings; he said the judge will decide questions about the sufficiency of signatures and standing of petitioners and opponents.
The commissioners asked the auditor and county attorney to provide relevant documents and indicated they would not adjudicate signature challenges themselves because the questions will be decided in court.
