Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utility Easement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Woodbury County tables City of Mobile easement after staff flags above‑ground fuel tank
Summary
County staff raised safety and property concerns about a City of Mobile permanent easement that would cross land with an above‑ground propane tank; the board voted to table approval until formal easement paperwork excludes the tank area or is finalized.
The Woodbury County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday tabled action on a City of Mobile request for a permanent utility easement after county staff flagged an above‑ground propane fuel tank within the proposed easement area.
Laura Severs, the county’s secondary‑roads representative, told the board the city is planning a water‑main project tied to a new water tower, treatment plant and wells. Severs said her concern was "that we have an above ground structure within the permanent easement. It's a fuel barrel, and so, or propane fuel tank." She recommended either excluding roughly a 10‑by‑10‑foot area around the tank from the easement or waiting for the city to provide finalized easement paperwork before the county signs anything.
Pat Smith, identified as public works director for the City of Mobile, described the broader project: "We plan to put a new water tower up, a new treatment plant, and 2 new wells," and said the segment of main in question will be a 12‑inch transmission main installed using trenchless methods. Smith said the city is not expecting the county to delay the overall project timeline because other easements are still pending.
After discussion about the tank's location relative to the proposed trenchless installation, Supervisor Nelson moved to table the easement until the formal easement documents are drafted and the small area around the tank can be explicitly excluded or confirmed. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
The board’s action was procedural: tabling leaves the permit and utility approval intact while postponing county authorization of the permanent easement until staff can review and approve finalized language. The county did not adopt or reject the easement’s substantive terms at the meeting.
The county asked the city to return with the finalized easement paperwork clarifying the excluded area around the tank or with revised legal descriptions; no new schedule was set at the meeting.
