Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Weed Assessment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Gilliam County holds public hearing and approves first reading of weed-control special assessment ordinance

Gilliam County Court · March 4, 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

Gilliam County Court held a public hearing March 4 on Ordinance 2026-01 (fiscal year 2026–27 weed-control special assessment), received public testimony, and moved to approve the ordinance's first reading by title only; the reading passed by voice vote and a second reading will be scheduled at least 13 days later.

Gilliam County Court opened a public hearing March 4 on Ordinance 2026-01, the proposed fiscal year 2026–27 weed-control special assessment, and received comments from residents before approving the ordinance's first reading by title only.

County staff explained the hearing process and asked speakers to identify themselves for the record. The packet published for the meeting listed a total assessment amount read into the record as about $47,460.52. A court member disclosed a familial connection to the county's weed master and said the relationship was not a direct financial conflict and that they would participate in the hearing.

Public commenters included Jennifer Bond, a Condan resident, and Max Denfield, who identified himself as a large county property owner in the southern part of the county. Denfield told the court he supports the weed-control program and thanked the weed crew for their work on his 12 acres. Bond asked procedural questions about the assessment and raised a packet typo the court agreed to correct before adoption.

After closing public testimony, the court moved and seconded two motions: to conduct the first reading of Ordinance 2026-01 by title only and to accept the first reading. Both motions carried on voice votes. The judge reminded the court that state procedure requires the ordinance to be read at least twice at least 13 days apart before final adoption.

The court said the second reading and possible adoption will occur at a future meeting, and directed staff to correct typographical errors in the packet and to publish the required notices before the next reading.