Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents question move as commissioners reorganize Lincoln County Port Authority board
Summary
After public hearing, Lincoln County commissioners approved Resolution 2025‑25 to rescind a prior resolution and reorganize the Lincoln County Port Authority board (setting up to seven members, including one sitting commissioner). Members of the public raised concerns about retroactive effect, appointment vs election and audit language; legal counsel defended the county's authority to appoint commission members.
The Lincoln County Board of County Commissioners on June 9 approved Resolution 2025‑25 to rescind a prior resolution (999) and reorganize the Lincoln County Port Authority (LCPA) board, allowing up to seven port commissioners with one sitting county commissioner as a member and naming several citizens with staggered terms.
The resolution was presented as a ratification of recently adopted LCPA bylaws and a change to board composition. It lists named appointees and term expirations and includes a standard clause stating that the new resolution prevails over conflicting prior resolutions. The board opened a posted public hearing before taking the vote.
Multiple members of the public used the hearing to question the timing and effect of the change. Dan Porus asked, “why are you guys changing the rules now?” and argued county residents should be represented rather than a particular locality. Martin Dunar and Ann German pressed the board on whether the language would effectively allow retroactive modification of prior governance and whether appointment rather than election would reduce accountability. One commenter urged that vacancies be filled by election rather than by commissioner appointment.
Jerry Bennett, a former town commissioner and a named appointee in the resolution, spoke in favor of the reorganization, saying the LCPA’s original nine‑member structure had been ineffective and that the revised composition would facilitate progress on brownfield remediation and future projects.
An attorney participating online answered questions from commissioners and said the resolution pertains to board composition and is within the county commissioners’ authority under state law to appoint port authority commissioners. Commissioners discussed counsel’s explanation before moving and approving the resolution by voice vote.
The board’s action drew follow‑up direction from several commenters who urged the commissioners to consult county counsel about whether the resolution’s language could be read to retroactively excuse past departures from prior bylaws and to clarify audit and governance provisions. The board recorded the motion as adopted and did not schedule further action on the matter during the meeting.
