Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Easement Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Twin Lakes easement counteroffer fails after motion receives no second; former county engineers object to relinquishing road ROW
Summary
A motion to accept Twin Lakes residents’ counteroffer for a narrowed easement failed for lack of a second. Two former county engineers told the Board they object to any County relinquishment of road right-of-way or easement to private landowners.
Get email alerts on the Easement Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A motion to accept a Twin Lakes residents’ counteroffer to the county’s earlier Sept. 25, 2025 proposal died for lack of a second at the Calhoun County Board of Supervisors meeting on Nov. 12.
Chairman Dave George proposed approving a 5-foot easement on both sides of the roadway plus a 5-foot buffer on the lake side, but no other supervisor seconded the motion, so it failed. The counteroffer was presented as a response to the County’s earlier offer memorialized in a resolution dated Sept. 25, 2025.
Two former county engineers — Ron Haden and Zac Anderson, both identified in the meeting as former Calhoun/Sac County engineers — told the Board they objected to the County giving up road right-of-way or easement to landowners. The County Attorney, Ben Smith, and several residents were present for the discussion. Haden and Anderson submitted letters outlining their objections and urged the Board to retain the County’s existing ROW and easement protections.
Board members did not take further action on the easement issue at the meeting. The matter remains unresolved; the Board’s failure to advance George’s motion means the County did not adopt the residents’ counteroffer during the Nov. 12 session. Any future action would be subject to subsequent Board consideration and formal motion.
The County’s minutes note that the Sept. 25 offer was memorialized in a resolution but do not list an ordinance or final agreement adopted at this meeting. The record indicates community members and former engineers attended and presented objections, but the Board made no decision to change existing easement or right-of-way status.
