Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Trail Road topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Resident objects to Trail Road cost estimate; board holds multiple attorney‑client sessions

Cloud County Board of Commissioners · March 23, 2026
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

A Concordia resident challenged the county's Trail Road cost estimate and presented a written complaint alleging ADA and due‑process concerns; the Cloud County Board approved several brief attorney‑client executive sessions to discuss the matter.

Ryan McMillan told the Cloud County Board of Commissioners on March 23 that he disagrees with the county's estimated cost to build and maintain Trail Road near 110th Road and presented a written letter alleging Public Access Road — ADA Title II violations, retaliation and due‑process concerns. He asked for a written response within 14 days and said he would file in court asserting the road has not been closed.

The board, chaired by Michael Cleveland, approved multiple attorney‑client executive sessions related to Trail Road. The first motion — moved by Commissioner Ron Copple and seconded by Commissioner Dannie Kearn — authorized a 10‑minute attorney‑client session; a subsequent five‑minute session was likewise approved. Later in the day the board approved an additional 10‑minute attorney‑client session to reconvene at 12:40 p.m.; the sessions listed attorney Mike Montoya and, later, attorney Forrest Rhodes among the attendees alongside Highway/Weed Administrator Rod Michaud and County Clerk Shella Thoman.

The motions were recorded as unanimous. The transcript does not include discussion of the substance of attorney‑client meetings; the board limited public discussion to acknowledging the sessions and listing attendees. McMillan’s letter, as described to the board, requested a written response and signaled intent to pursue court action.

Next steps recorded in the meeting minutes were procedural: the board scheduled the attorney‑client sessions and did not record a formal staff directive or a public timetable for responding to the letter.

Provenance: The resident’s concerns and the board’s motions regarding Trail Road appear in the meeting transcript starting at SEG 001.