Laserfiche WebLink
<br />\=fJ3230 <br /> <br />2b DISCUSS PROCEDURE REGARDING REQUEST TO OPEN COUNTY ROAD <br />(PROPOSED ADDITIONAL SEGMENT OF ELM ISLAND ROAD) - County Attorney <br />Jerry Janulewicz stated that the board received a letter from Attorney Duane Burns for <br />the estate of Maxine Terry. They are requesting a public road to their property and the <br />county board indicated that they want to proceed with this request. Jerry stated that <br />there are two ways the board can proceed. Under statute 39-1701 they could adopt a <br />resolution describing the road and stating the need for this road. They resolution could <br />authorize the County Surveyor to survey the land and negotiate the purchase from the <br />property owner and if the land could not be obtained they could pursue eminent domain <br />proceedings. The County would stand costs for construction and maintenance. <br /> <br />The second method to provide access to isolated land would be under 39-1713. The <br />parties could petition the county board and a public hearing would have to be held within <br />30 days. Following the public hearing the board could proceed with opening the public <br />road. Under the second method the party requesting the opening of the road would be <br />responsible for the costs and the costs would be paid to the county treasurer. The <br />second method is more complicated. The board needs to decide what they want to do. <br />County Surveyor Dan Hostler reminded the board that they would need to acquire the <br />66-ft for the right of way if it is a public road. <br /> <br />Jeffries made a motion and Hartman seconded to follow the first method by approving a <br />resolution to open the road. Eriksen stated that he would like to follow the easiest way <br />with minimal cost. Jerry Janulewicz suggested that the board could g into executive <br />session to discuss real estate negotiations if they wanted to. <br /> <br />Attorney Duane Burns was present and requested to speak to the board. He stated that <br />they Terry's did use the property but since it is to be sold the fact that there is not a <br />public road limits it marketability and they have not negotiated with the Crane Trust <br />concerning the purchase of the right of way for a road. He did not think the Crane Trust <br />would be opposed to opening the road. <br /> <br />Jeffries stated that both parties would use the road and he thought the cost should be <br />minimal. <br /> <br />Arnold questioned if there were any buildings and Mr. Burns stated that there is a <br />storage building. <br /> <br />County Surveyor stated that this cannot be a minimum maintenance road and it would <br />have to be moved over to the section line because it is currently on the west side of the <br />section line. <br /> <br />Discussion was held and Jeffries withdrew his motion and Hartman withdrew is second <br />because they need to know the cost of the project. <br /> <br />Jeffries made a motion and Eriksen seconded to refer this to the county attorney and the <br />public works committee to come back to the next meeting with the cost of the project. <br />Arnold, Eriksen, Hartman, Humiston, Jeffries, Lancaster and Rye all voted yes and none <br />voted no. Motion carried. <br /> <br />PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - Chairman Lancaster called for public participation and <br />Harold Rosenkotter, 3115 Goldenrod Drive requested to speak to the county board. He <br /> <br />4 <br />