Resident Presses Clark County Board on West Union Property Cleanup

Clark County Board | September 18, 2026

Article Summary: A resident used the public comment period at the Clark County Board’s Sept. 18 meeting to ask for an update on the county ordinance and the cleanup of West Union, prompting the state’s attorney to name two properties under discussion. No board action was taken and the minutes record no addresses, no timeline and no enforcement steps.

West Union Property Cleanup Key Points:

• Paul Henry Wilson asked the board for an update on the county ordinance and the cleanup of West Union.
• State’s Attorney Kyle Hutson said the Strohm property cleanup is being discussed between the county engineer and the board chairman.
• The minutes record that “Littlejohn’s have been contacted and said that they have hired a contractor to tear down the property.”
• Wilson asked about other properties that have burnt; the minutes record only “There was more discussion.”

CLARK COUNTY — Derelict and burned-out property in West Union came before the Clark County Board on Friday, Sept. 18, 2026, when resident Paul Henry Wilson used the meeting’s public comment period to ask members for an update on the county ordinance and the cleanup of the community.

State’s Attorney Kyle Hutson responded. According to the minutes, Hutson stated that the Strohm property cleanup is being discussed between Highway Engineer Richardson and Board Chair Rex Goble. The minutes then record, in their own words, that “Littlejohn’s have been contacted and said that they have hired a contractor to tear down the property.”

The record does not establish which property that last sentence refers to, nor does it state the relationship of the party named to the property in question. Wilson went on to inquire about other properties that have burnt. The minutes close the exchange with the single sentence “There was more discussion,” recording none of its substance.

No motion was made and no vote was taken. Public comment appears on the board’s standing agenda as item 5, ahead of the approval of claims, and the board took no action on the subject at any later point in the meeting.

What the Record Does Not Say

The county ordinance at the center of the exchange is identified in the minutes only as “the County Ordinance.” No number, title, adoption date or substantive provision appears anywhere in the materials, and the record does not state what the ordinance requires of property owners, what enforcement mechanism it provides, or whether it has been invoked against any property in West Union.

Likewise absent are addresses for either named property, the identity of the contractor said to have been hired, any cost to the county or to any owner, any demolition timeline, and any account of how many other burned structures Wilson was asking about. The minutes do not record whether the county has opened a formal enforcement action, nor what role the highway engineer and the board chairman are playing in the discussions Hutson described.

Three county officials are named in connection with the matter: Hutson, Richardson and Goble. No board member other than the chairman is recorded as speaking during the item, and no staff report or written update accompanied it.

For readers in and around West Union with a direct stake in the condition of neighboring property, the September record establishes only that the question was asked, that two properties are under discussion, and that one party has reported hiring a contractor.