The Ottumwa Courier

October 25, 2012

4-H granted storage space at County Home

Board of Supervisors delays decision on property easement

CINDY TOOPES
Courier Staff Writer

OSKALOOSA — Members of the Wapello County 4-H Expo have a lot of equipment, but they’re a bit short on space.

Wapello County Supervisor Jerry Parker said the 4-H group noticed the county wasn’t using a building at the Wapello County Home.

“The 4-H group does have a lot of rabbit cages, chicken cages, gates, scales and other small things like that which they have to store inside somewhere,” he said.

The 4-H members noticed the county workers weren’t using the building and asked the supervisors for the space.

Parker said he told the 4-H Expo members they could store their equipment in the building, but the supervisors couldn’t guarantee the county wouldn’t want to use the building later.

“Our agreement was the club could use the building for 90 days or until the county would have a need for it,” Parker said. “They seemed to be happy with having the opportunity to store their things in one spot.”

In other business, the supervisors also held a public hearing to vacate and clear the record of an easement for highway purposes.

A few days before this week’s meeting, Supervisor Greg Kenning said the board might vacate an easement by the four-lane highway, which would allow one person more acreage for cattle.

“But this oddly constructed piece of land is landlocked and gridlocked by the highway,” Kenning said.

Those involved have looked at other feasible accesses to the cornfield.

“Then the other person could take an access and make it into a farm field,” Kenning noted. “They’ll have to compromise because there’s good and bad in both.”

Parker said board members listened to both sides of the issue but didn’t make a decision during this week’s meeting.

“We didn’t make a decision because we wanted the county engineer to be present,” Parker said. “We informed the two sides how to approach the problem.”

The supervisors could leave the easement as it is, with no changes or the board could just say “no easement.”

“Someone years ago needed this easement, but things change,” Parker said. “We could abate the whole easement and just say ‘no easement,’ which would be a detriment to the property owner because access would be lost.”

He also noted the board could do nothing by leaving the situation as it is. But that would hurt one of the parties involved.

Using part of the land for cattle almost worked, but an easement was needed for a driveway for the other property owner.