Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Route66 Renaming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lebanon opens public hearing on renaming Elm Street to Route 66 after state law cited
Summary
At a Jan. 27 public hearing, a resident cited a 1998 state law and urged formal adoption of Route 66 for Elm Street; city staff said the renaming will follow a multi‑step process, letters were mailed to corridor property owners and the city will coordinate changes with the post office.
Lebanon, Mo. — Lebanon City Council opened a public hearing on Jan. 27 on a proposal to formally rename Elm Street as Route 66 after a resident cited state law and urged the change.
Howard Fuller, who addressed the council during public comment, cited House Bill 948 (1998) and read language saying the original portions of U.S. Route 66 in the state “shall be renamed Route 66” and argued the city must incorporate that change subject to Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) determinations. “You cannot dual address your address,” Fuller warned about postal delivery, saying residents would have to elect a single official address rather than use both Elm Street and Route 66.
City staff told council the hearing begins a three‑step local process: an initial resolution to recommend the name change, a roughly 30‑day period for public notice and comment, and a subsequent ordinance to adopt the change in conformance with relevant state code. Staff said the city will work with the post office on address logistics and that property owners and business owners along the corridor already received mailed notices asking for input. Mockups of the new street signs were placed on the council table and staff said signal‑mounted signs or replacements would incur only nominal costs for the city and property owners.
No members of the public came forward during the hearing to speak on the proposal; council will return to the item at a later meeting for further action if warranted. The hearing was presented as part of the council’s regular public‑hearing docket and does not itself enact the change; further procedural steps and a final council vote will be required if the council moves forward.
