Published: November 07, 2008 03:41 pm            

Trial held regarding road vacation

It’s in the judge’s hands now.

Witnesses testified Thursday, Oct. 30, in the case of Kyle Simons and Paula Midgorden versus the Marion County Board of Supervisors. Simons and Midgorden sued the supervisors after the board voted last year to discontinue maintenance on the road that led to the couple’s property, 455 Erbe Street.

The road in question was a level A, gravel road, approximately 500 feet in length, known as County Road 585. It is the couple’s only access to their property. The property includes the couple’s home, as well as a small livestock and crop operation. It is located north of Pleasantville and the couple’s home is the only one serviced by the road.

Simons took the stand and testified that the county’s maintenance of the road was a factor in his bid on the property. He purchased it for $79,500 in 1999.

“At the time we bought the property, we thought it was worth at least $5,000,” Simons said. His bid would have been lower if the county did not maintain the road.

The couple could have purchased equipment to plow snow and otherwise maintain the road, which could also be used on their farm. Simons said his 100 acres did not justify the purchase of this equipment. Marion County Engineer Roger Schletzbaum testified that, in early 2007, the board asked him to look for ways to cut costs. One option was to find road segments that could be vacated, or no longer maintained, by the county.

“We looked at those in terms of how they serve the general public,” Schletzbaum said. “Those types of roads would have inherently less travel.” In addition to the plaintiffs’ road, the county vacated two others at the same time.

“They can close any road they want,” Simons said. “My understanding is they must compensate us.”

When the board chose to vacate 585, on May 29, 2007, Simons immediately asked for compensation. It was denied at the board’s next meeting on June 11, 2007. That’s when the lawsuit was filed.

Testifying for the couple was Mike Killen, a contractor. Killen testified that the road needed a new culvert, which would cost $2,500 and 100 tons of rock, which would cost $1,700. In addition, Killen said it would likely cost $100 per snowfall for snow removal on the road.

The plaintiffs and the county each had an appraisal done on the property, following the vacation. Both appraisers believe the property is worth $115,000.

Simons took the stand to read a deposition from Dane Anderson, an appraiser with Iowa Appraisals and Research. Anderson said the property is worth $115,000 with county maintenance, but without, it is worth $101,000. According to the deposition, Anderson believes $14,000 should be taken off due to the homeowner maintenance. It was difficult for him to come up with a figure to compensate for the county maintenance.

“I’ve never seen a situation like this before,” Anderson’s deposition said. Anderson had a different viewpoint than the man hired to do an appraisal for the county, Rich DeHeer.

DeHeer believes the lack of county maintenance adds value to the property. In today’s market, most new homes are built with a lot of distance between the house and a gravel road.

“People are building houses back off the road,” DeHeer said. During his cross examination, the plaintiffs’ attorney, Bob Stuyvesant, gave DeHeer a hypothetical about two condominiums. If one had a county maintained driveway and the other did not, which would be more expensive. DeHeer said the one with the maintained driveway would sell for more. The method Anderson used to do his appraisal was criticized by DeHeer. He accused Anderson of using a lot of “I think” and “we think” in his appraisal.

“You’ve got to deal with facts and figures,” DeHeer said.

DeHeer suggested it was possible for the couple to find someone to plow 585 for $25 per snowfall. Simons disagreed. Simons also testified that, though he owns a four-weel drive truck, he was told it was not good for the truck to use it to plow the road.

Schletzbaum testified that the county has vacated other roads that served residents. He told Stuyvesant that in general, when a person buys a home, he or she can expect the county to maintain the road that leads to it. In the case of 585, Schletzbaum said there was a new grader operator who did not recognize it as a road and skipped it. The county had to go back to clear the snow.

Schletzbaum had delegated much of the paperwork regarding the road vacation to his Second Assistant Engineer Steve McCombs. McCombs took the stand to describe the steps he took to notify the plaintiffs about the proposed vacation.

Absent from the stand were the supervisors. None of the supervisors were in attendance at the trial. According to the board’s attorney in this case, Barbara Hering of Des Moines, the minutes of the meetings where the vacation actions took place covered the supervisors’ testimony.

The trial opened at 9:30 a.m. and ended a little after 3 p.m.

Judge Peter Keller told counsel he would accept closing arguments via e-mail within 10 days. No judgement has been rendered yet.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.