On Friday, March 15, Judge Chris Porter and the county commissioners held a meeting that began with public comments that regarded the Gray County Road Use Agreement and Right of Way Agreement.
Bill Haley was the first to address the commissioners.
“A few of my concerns are one: setting some precedents on county roads. It’s a little disconcerning the right of easement back when a lot of these were written. It’s just a little shocking that any of these need to be reopened for discussion for what is in the easement. Next is if this was my land, I’d be a little perturbed to know that the county is undercutting my negotiations.”
Sena Brainard was next to speak.
“Having been present during meetings with the commissioners and Judge, I’m very concerned about what could be implied when a landowner gives the easement to the county. Over 25 years ago when the county gave back the county road, the land reverts back to the land owner.”
“When the Brainards over 100 years ago in different counties gave our counties the right to come through, it was for our benefit-not for a company for profit. It was for the benefit for us, the landowner and the county for emergency services, to school buses, things like that. Not for an entity such as the City of Pampa and a private business in here for profit to have a million dollar deal at the expense of these people.”
John Spearman was next and first provided the court minutes from a commissioner’s meeting from the 1930s.
“The land for the roads was approved for public roads. It doesn’t say anything about easements for water lines or utilities or anything else. I know that the last I checked, we’re still paying taxes. We still own the land if we’re having to pay taxes on it. I would question your ability to give the right of way to an entity. You already set a precedent in 2005 when you told T. Boone Pickens that road usage would have to be discussed with the land owner, not the county. I’m sure that’s in your minutes because y’all voted on that.”
Terry Hall stepped up next to speak.
“We bought that land section-for-section. We pay taxes on those sections. The right of way for county roads is given by the landowners and we still pay taxes. But that right of way is for public use only. It does not give the county the right or the power to give someone an easement for property.”
Stephen Martin was next.
“The county doesn’t even have a right of way. The right of way is not created through maintenance of the road. You set precedence there in 2005 that you did not have a right to give a business that permission. If the landowner owns it, you do not have the right of way. To establish a right of way, it has to be a contract of sale or deed or condemnation..and y’all have not done that. So you do not have the right to do this. The landowners own that. If they want to do that, they have to get an easement from landowner, not the county.”
Once public comments were heard, the court went through the first few items on the agenda such as the consideration of the caliche donation from Frank J. Haley and James Haley in the amount of $9,250, extending the Interlocal Road Maintenance Agreement between Gray County and the City of Lefors, and the consideration of enrollment with TAC for Cyber Security Training for all employees-all were approved.
Next was the discussion and consideration of the Gray County Road Use Agreement.
“We are still hashing this out. I believe this is the third meeting in a row that this has been on the agenda. I think this is the initial process of what they wanted to use,” Judge Porter said.
“My understanding is this agreement is pretty specifically just to make sure that whatever condition the roads were in when they started, they’re at least to that extent when they’re done. But we’re not limiting the public’s use to these roads. So I don’t think there’s any need to enter into this agreement until we’re certain what road this is going to cover,” Commissioner Hudson said.
Due to incomplete information, the action to postpone the Road Use Agreement was voted upon and approved.
Next was the discussion and consideration of the Gray County Right of Way Agreement.
Judge Porter asked each of the commissioners present and County Attorney, Josh Seabourn if they had negotiated with Intersect Power for the use of county road right of ways-all said no.
“What we’re trying to make sure is that our road crossings are correct. We have farmers, ranchers, oil companies that just go in and lay pipeline through our road. We are trying to update the language on that to make it more firm on what they can and cannot do and make sure we get our definitions right,” Judge Porter said.
He then asked Seabourn to define what the right of way is on a county road.
“As we’ve gotten into this in other issues, it comes down to if it was deeded at a certain distance or what was used by practice. A good general rule is that most right of ways are 33 feet wide. Once you’ve got that right of way there, it’s used for utilities and no one person can use it. It’s a public right of way.”
“So to be clear, there is no pipeline being laid in a county right of way?” Judge Porter asked, to which Seabourn said no, there isn’t.
“There’s a lot of things out there that are being misrepresented and the facts are just wrong. I invite anyone who has a question to call my office. I’ve tried to be as respectful to whoever calls. I understand that there is a decision that was made that wasn’t agreed with and our primary purpose is to serve the 21,800 people of Gray County. We are not a nefarious group of people and we are not trying to undercut anyone or hide anything. We try to keep everything as transparent as possible.”
“I don’t know any other way to convince certain people that we’re not out to mess anyone over. So I hope this kind of lays that down a little bit. We will do what’s right by statute every single time. We are under oath basically as officers of the court and if we say something that is an intention of misrepresentation or a lie, that is perjury.”
“If I can’t lay my head down on the pillow at night and sleep, I’ve got problems. I hate that this is as controversial as it is. We won’t make a decision on this for another couple of meetings.”
“I’m going to be as factual as possible and not pull the wool over anyone’s eyes. This agreement is far from final.”
After discussing that the wording of the agreement and other specifics that need to be included be made before any finalization, the court agreed to postpone the consideration and approval of the agreement until such changes are made.
The last item on the agenda of interest was considering the Burn Ban Order for Gray County which was extended.
