Grant County Court Votes to Dissolve Road Service District

Commissioners cite lack of separation between county and district, loss of expected PILT funds as reasons for decision.

Published on Mar. 8, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The Grant County Court in Oregon voted 2-1 to dissolve the county's road service district, which had been created as a way to receive additional Secure Rural Schools (SRS) payments. County Judge Jim Hamsher said the district essentially operated as a pass-through for SRS funds, but the federal government determined there was not enough separation between the county court and the road service district. Hamsher also said the county did not receive the extra PILT money it had hoped to get by creating the district.

Why it matters

The dissolution of the road service district raises concerns about transparency and accountability for road funds in Grant County. Some community members argued the district provided more oversight, while the county claims it has passed orders to ensure road funds cannot be misappropriated in the future.

The details

The county court first considered dissolving the road service district after holding special meetings on February 27. They tabled the decision until the March 4 meeting to allow more time for research. The road service district was created in 2023 after the passage of HB 2174, which allowed counties to redirect SRS payments that would normally go to the road department into a separate public entity. However, the federal government determined there was not enough separation between the county court, which served as the district's board, and the district itself. Additionally, the county did not receive the extra PILT money it had hoped to get by creating the district.

  • The Grant County Court voted 2-1 to dissolve the road service district on March 4, 2026.
  • The county court first considered dissolving the district after special meetings held on February 27, 2026.
  • In November 2023, nearly 80% of voters approved the ballot measure to create the road service district.

The players

Jim Hamsher

The Grant County Judge who said the district essentially operated as a pass-through for SRS funds and that the federal government determined there was not enough separation between the county court and the road service district.

John Rowell

The lone county commissioner who voted against dissolving the road service district, citing transparency and the public's desire to keep the district.

Frances Preston

A community member who pushed for legal reviews of the ordinance, resolution, and order to dissolve the district, and urged the commissioners to keep the road service district to ensure transparency and protect future road funds.

Judy Kerr

A member of the county's road advisory board who challenged the resolution and order to dissolve the road service district, stating the county had not listened to the will of the people.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“We must not let individuals continue to damage private property in San Francisco.”

— Robert Jenkins, San Francisco resident (San Francisco Chronicle)

“Fifty years is such an accomplishment in San Francisco, especially with the way the city has changed over the years.”

— Gordon Edgar, grocery employee (Instagram)

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing debate over transparency and accountability for road funds in Grant County, with some community members arguing the road service district provided more oversight, while the county claims it has taken steps to ensure road funds cannot be misappropriated in the future.