By Danica Baker
Herald Staff Writer
May 07, 2008 10:56 am
—
CLINTON — The Clinton County Board of Supervisors will vote on the assessments set for proposed improvements to 360th Avenue at their meeting next week.
On Monday, County Engineer Todd Kinney explained that he received a petition seeking road improvements to a portion of 360th Avenue, approximately 1,500 linear feet of road south from 292nd Street past the entrance to the Randall Martens property. Kinney noted that by code, he was required to draft an engineer’s report and the county must hold a public hearing to solicit citizen input on the issue and receive comments regarding the issue until noon the day of the hearing.
During the public hearing, Kinney said the petition asked that grading and surfacing with aggregate material be done on 360th Avenue, improving the road from a level B road to a level A road. He said the petition process mandates residents pay for 50 percent of the improvements, which would leave half of the $28,000 estimated cost to be paid by three landowners.
According to the proposed assessments in Kinney’s engineer’s report, Randall Martens is the primary beneficiary of the improvement and therefore was assessed to have more than 72 percent of the cost, or $10,108. His father, Lawrence Martens, would be responsible for 18.5 percent of the cost, or $2,590, and neighbor Paul Leonard would pay $1,302, or 9.3 percent of the cost. According to the report, the petition was signed by Randall and Lawrence Martens, but not by Leonard.
Mike DuBrien said he is one of four property owners in the area and questioned when the road was put in or declared a roadway, as he always had been advised it was county right-of-way. Supervisor Jill Davisson said it always had been a road and Board Chairman Grant Wilke added that the road was never classified, but basically is right-of-way and allows access to properties there. DuBrien expressed his opposition to the county paying for the road improvements.
“As a citizen, it just seems not right,” he said. “To me, basically the county would be spending a lot of money to pave a guy’s driveway.”
Kinney said that in recent months, discussions had been held about vacating the property, but easements would have to be secured, because it could landlock property owners on the southern end. He said he would rather vacate the road to the property owners, as it would be more cost efficient. Davisson stated that though it likely would be the best option, some adjacent neighbors opposed vacating the road and the discussions “fizzled out.” Kinney advised the board the county could vacate the road and then pay damages to affected property owners.
Lee Stofer, an owner of property in the neighborhood of 360th Avenue and 260th Street, seconded DuBrien’s remarks, saying he thinks the smartest thing to do is vacate the street, which would cost less in legal fees than improving and maintaining the street as a level A road. Kinney agreed that vacating the street would be the less expensive option.
Randall Martens said he initially had a lawyer send Paul and Sharon Leonard papers regarding a potential vacation of the road, but received no response. He then asked the board that if they approved the assessments, and if future development occurs on the road, he would like to be reimbursed.
Davisson said she feels the county is responsible for providing and maintaining transportation routes. She said if the vacation of the road would save the county money, it would be a simple solution if everyone can agree to it.
Sharon Leonard said she feels the road improvement would privately benefit Randall Martens alone. She also stated Martens obtained a building permit from the Planning and Zoning Commission with the caveat that he access the property from an easement. Leonard said Martens constructed his home, but did not use the easement to construct a driveway and now expects taxpayers to pay for a new road to his residence. She called the move “nothing short of public extortion” and said Martens should have to pay for 100 percent of the improvements himself or develop an easement on his father’s property.
Supervisor Dennis Starling said the issue at hand is the assessment and the board should stay on course because a vacation had been discussed previously but an agreement could not be reached. When asked by Wilke for his opinion, Starling said he believed the issue with access was put to rest when Martens was given a building permit contingent on obtaining an easement off of 292nd Street. He questioned whether the roadway would be improved if Martens had not built a house there, saying he didn’t think so, and said the board still has time to examine the potential of vacating the road.
Davisson said she would like to know what damages the county would have to pay before making her decision on the proposed assessment. She said she wished she hadn’t voted to make the road a level B road, but made it a level A road, but now feels a duty to provide the roadway. She said that if the county is going to upgrade the road, the county should pay for it.
Wilke said he feels that only one person benefits from the road improvement, and he has no problem with helping one person, but a building permit was granted on the condition of access through an easement. Wilke said if it was up to him, he would have revoked the building permit when the easement was not used.
Wilke said that if road improvements are necessary the costs are unavoidable, but he does not think the road improvement is necessary because an easement for access was granted. He added that with the potential elimination of the Road Use Tax, less money would be received by the county for road repairs. Wilke said he would look at what is best for all the residents of the area and the citizens of the county.
After the closing of the public hearing, Kinney said the board could postpone the vote, vote on the matter or change the assessments. He noted the board could direct him to amend the five-year road construction program and include the project, where the county would pay for 100 percent of the improvement. Due to other items on the agenda, the board postponed further discussion on the matter until after 2 p.m. At that time, the board agreed to place a resolution on the next meeting agenda on Monday.
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.