Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Easement Twin Lakes topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Calhoun County Board authorizes Twin Lakes easement settlement over objections

Board of Supervisors of Calhoun County · December 2, 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 Board of Supervisors approved Resolution 2025-34 to accept a settlement changing easement width on Twin Lakes Road, passing 2-1 after objections from former county officials who said the change lacked transparency and should have had a public hearing.

The Calhoun County Board of Supervisors voted 2-1 on Dec. 2 to approve Resolution 2025-34, authorizing a settlement offer that alters the easement width for properties along Twin Lakes Road. Chairman Dave George moved to adopt the resolution; Vice Chairman Cory Ridgely seconded the motion and both voted in favor. Scott Jacobs cast the lone no vote.

Calhoun/Sac County Attorney Ben Smith presented the settlement offer and recommended board authorization. Several former county officials raised objections during the discussion: Mike Cooper, a former county supervisor, said removing the easement from the top of the water line could create problems on the road’s west side, and former County Engineer Ron Haden said the proposal was insufficiently transparent and that a public hearing should have been held so utilities could comment. James Heiliger, Calhoun/Sac Assistant County Attorney, spoke in support of approving the resolution.

The resolution as presented lists multiple affected property owners. The board record shows the motion was made by Dave George and seconded by Cory Ridgely; George and Ridgely voted yes and Jacobs voted no. The minutes do not record direct quotes or a formal public hearing on the easement change prior to the vote.

The board did not identify further procedural steps in the minutes; staff or the county attorney will carry out whatever administrative steps are needed to implement the settlement and record the change. No drainage matters were presented at the meeting.