Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Utilities And Infrastructure topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Fiscal Court approves low‑maintenance acceptance of Tugner/Tucker Hollow Road to allow waterline extension

6438629 · September 24, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The court agreed to take an extension of Tugner/Tucker Hollow Road into the county's low‑maintenance road system to allow water meters and a utility easement for a waterline extension; the viewing report said the segment did not meet full county road standards.

Ohio County Fiscal Court voted to accept an extension of Tugner (referred to in the transcript also as Tucker) Hollow Road as a low‑maintenance county road so the water department can obtain a utility easement to extend water service.

A court member said constituents asked to extend the county waterline and that the county needs a road easement for the water department to place meters. The court acknowledged that the viewing committee’s report stated the extension did not meet the requirements for full county acceptance. Despite that, the court voted to accept the extension under the county’s low‑maintenance designation to enable utilities to be installed; members said residents would continue current maintenance practices themselves.

Discussion during the motion included the expected addition of about six water meters; the transcript records committee members debating right‑of‑way widths, with references to 16‑foot and 30–40‑foot figures and to the county ordinance showing a 40‑foot requirement. The court resolved to treat the road as low maintenance so the waterline work could proceed; the motion carried by voice vote.

The transcript does not specify the exact footage or final right‑of‑way width adopted in the motion; the viewing form and footage were referenced but not read into the public record during the discussion. The court deferred further work to the road committee and said details would be added to the record later.