The most recent petition to vacate County Road 55 was again met with opposition. This time the public hearing was held in Osakis at the community center with a full house in attendance. All five commissioners were present as well as Auditor/Treasurer Karen Busch, Engineer Loren Fellbaum and Attorney Paul Reuvers who is representing the county in this matter.

Reuvers gave a brief explanation of why they were holding the meeting. Because a petition was filed, the state requires all interested parties to be heard.

He said that a road cannot be vacated if it landlocks a private individual. According to the petition filers, any landlocked properties would be taken care of through easements.

Fellbaum had reviewed the petition and he listed some issues he felt would be significant if the vacation occurred.

Issue #1: On the southwest end of CR55, if vacated, a small portion of the road would remain resulting in a dead end. He said they could create a cul-de-sac or loop back to Highway 27. A proper sized cul-de-sac would be on top of 27.

Issue #2: Also on the southwest end. He said in the last ten years or so, a portion of the mile to be vacated may have been turned back to the city of Osakis and may belong to the city. He questioned who would be responsible to remove the pavement. He said it could be used by the county.

Issue #3: The county would ask for indemnification from the petition signers and landowners to protect the county.

Reuvers explained that because the county fully expects a second lawsuit from Ellsworth Johnson and possibly others if the road is vacated, the county would require indemnification.

Issue #4: Not really an issue, but the county would save money by not having to maintain the road. Fellbaum said they could save about $7600 a year which is all local levy money.

Issue #5: To vacate the road the county would require an engineered plan showing all easements, access points onto 27. This would all have to be documented in some sort of drawing.

Issue #6: The question about the road being unsafe was investigated by Fellbaum. He said the Department of Public Safety Database only shows two crashes in the last ten years. A report from the sheriffís department shows nothing.

Issue #7: New accesses would need the approval of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Fellbaum said there are limited access points allowed on trunk highways, of which 27 is one.

The floor was opened up for petitioner comments.

Jackie Rodriguez, owner of Early Inn Resort, and Julie Carlson, an Early Inn Resort property owner, were first up. The Early Inn Resort is located on the one mile stretch the petitioners hope to vacate.

Rodriguez addressed some of the concerns brought up by Fellbaum. She said that the easements were already discussed and would be put in place leaving no one landlocked.

She said that MnDOT wonít discuss anything with them until they have a favorable response from the county about the vacation.

She had a drawing that showed all the accesses.

Chair Randy Neumann asked, ìWhat if Mrs. (Charlotte) Carlson doesnít want it vacated?î

Rodriguez said that the landowners would also pay for the removal of the asphalt and donate it to the county. ìThis is our gift to the county,î she said. She said that asphalt is recycled at $20 a yard.

She also said she had talked with the Osakis city maintenance department and they have done the plowing on the south end of the road and will not need a cul-de-sac.

On the issue of indemnification, she asked if this was a current policy for the county to require that? She said that during the commissionerís March 18 meeting they had given a road back to Staples and asked if they had required indemnification from them?

She said further, that there have been many accidents on the road that have not been recorded or people had not called the police.

Julie Carlson talked about the rate of speed at which people travel the road, that they go trespassing through private property and throw garbage into their yards. She said if the speed limit is 30 MPH then it ought to be enforced.

She said that there has been talk about making the area safer and more environmentally friendly and wondered where that money would come from.

Next to speak was Lil Ortendahl who also owns property on this section of road.

She said this was not a popularity contest or a contest to see how many letters to the editor could be written. She said the issue was to treat this as a well-traveled road and a trail that is used for hiking, biking, strollers, golf carts, horses, cars and many other forms of travel.

She said that she has been on her property there for 40 years and has paid taxes on it for 40 years. ìMaybe a court has to decide who really owns it (the road),î she said.

She said vacating the road would not restrict travel except to the property owners. Since the landowners were assuming the costs to vacate it, why not let them. The road would still exist, just not that mile of it.

She said there are 23 miles of road around the lake.

ìWe are not restricting lake access. There is at least five miles with direct sight of the lake,î she said.

Ortendahl who is a retired registered nurse and EMT said in her 40 years there, she personally took care of four accidents.

She said that there have also been many crimes committed on their property from gas stealing to bombs in the mailbox to windows being shot out.

ìThey use our private picnic tables and docks like they are theirs. They steal things that are loose in our yard,î she said.

Mark Braunschweig said he was a relatively newcomer to the area, but expressed his concern for the future not only for the safety of children at the resorts, but safety issues in general on that section of road.

He said he appreciated people wanting to save the road, but have yet to be told how they should be watching the road.

He asked what had been done in the last 50 years or so to promote this road as a scenic byway? ìWhat have you done to make it better?î

ìWe are asking for the last mile. Youíve had 50 years to make something of this. Weíll give you the rest and make it beautiful,î he said.

Curt Botner who also owns property on this section, told the commissioners they will hear many emotional comments, but not to lose site of making a decision based on facts and findings. He said there was no evidence that this road was designed to be a historic byway or anything else other than a road to get from point A to point B.

ìThe primary purpose has changed. It has ceased to be a through road and has become an access road. It isnít needed anymore. It is not a historic or rustic road. Listen to the voice of common sense. This section is no longer needed,î said Botner.

Gabe Rodriguez, who along with wife Jackie, owns Early Inn Resort, said that in the 10 years he has been there, he has seen the road only as ìa way to see what your neighbors are doing. They are nosy and are looking to see what weíre doing.î

He said there was nothing wrong with the public park in Osakis or with Battle Point Park. ìThere are many places to get out of your vehicle and enjoy the lake.î

There were letters read into record from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Osakis Postmaster and the Osakis Public School.

According to the transportation manager, a full size bus would not fit down the road and students would have to walk to loading areas, some of which would be located on 27.

After the petitioners had all spoken, Fellbaum addressed some of the concerns brought by them.

He said that as far as indemnification went, there was no standard because this vacation request was initiated by a petition.

Reuvers said that the road ownership question was a non-issue. ìItís a county road, the county owns it.î

Next came the public comment portion of the hearing. People were given a three minute time limit to speak their piece.

Attorney Randy Brown who is representing Ellsworth Johnson and Charlotte Carlson listed four reasons the county should not vacate.

#1: They would have to replace Johnsonís access with a private easement. He said they could not legally vacate the road without direct access to a public road for both Johnson and Carlson. They cannot be forced to accept a private easement.

#2: The cost associated. He said the first vacation petition which was to be at no county expense, cost the county over $29,000. He said a second petition could have similar costs. He said that since the road was 100 years old, if approximately $7000 was spent annually to maintain this section, then the county has spent over $700,000 to maintain it so far.

#3: An Environmental Assessment Worksheet was done on the area and the Sauk River Watershed District had listed some environmental consequences.

#4: He said that the area does have scenic qualities and a study was done to prepare the countyís comp plan and that CR 55 may have been part of the scenic loop around Lake Osakis.

He said that the State Scenic Byways program would be accepting applications next year and that Johnson intended to pursue that.

Bud Manders, who has lived in the area for 25 years said he never had any vandalism. ìI know of one accident in the last 10 years. A kid road his bike into the side of a vehicle. Is that the roadís fault?î

Kathern Edenloff, Roger Iverson, Jerry Olson and many other landowners spoke against vacating the road.

Michael Cowdery said that the commissioners bore an awesome power and responsibility in deciding this matter.

He said that the people opposed to closing CR55 were not opposed to development as long as it was done on a thoughtful, reasonable basis.

Don Heinrich said that the road was there when they (petitioners who want to vacate) bought the property. He felt the road should not be closed for financial gain.

Dorothy Gmerick who also owns property on CR55 said she listened as Developer Dennis Larson said that he would do his development with or without the vacation of CR55.

She felt the commissioners needed to state the reasons they voted one way or another.

ìShame on all of you. This should never have taken three years to make a final decision,î she said.

Dennis Miller said that he was on the Leslie Town Board when they vacated a road for Neumann from which Neumann gained $15,000 on his property.

Neumann said this was a personal attack.

Miller said that if one guy could get it, so should another be able to.

He said the valuable part of these peopleís property was on the other side of CR55. He said this section has slowly turned into a public park.

Nancy Johnson, Ellsworthís daughter who lives in the Cities, spoke. She said that people use the road for many reasons, good recreational purposes and encouraged the board to keep it open. ìIf it is closed only a few landowners get to enjoy it. We need more slower paced roads. Donít just give it to a few. Keep it open for everyone.î

Another daughter of Ellsworthís spoke next. She said that J. Rodriguez had spoken ìnicely about accesses. My father has not agreed to an easement. If he did it would incur many expenses from changing the driveway to new landscaping and the position of the garage.î She said the house and garage were historic places having been owned by Prizefighter Tommy Gibbons. She also said that Ellsworth was not willing to incur the expense of removing the asphalt.

Theresa Quirt said that the road was used by people all around the county and that it was not just the Osakis area that was concerned with the future of this road.

Roger Larson said he enjoys the scenic drive and goes there many days. ìYou can see by the attendance here that we are not the only ones who want the road left as it is. I like to drive there. I will drive it until they take away my license which I hope isnít too soon.î

The petitioners were then given time for rebuttals.

Botner said he is up at his property every weekend and wondered why no one has ever stopped to say ìhi.î

J. Carlson asked the commissioners to consider what they would think was an appropriate speed for a road that went through their yard.

Nona Betts who was born and raised in Osakis said it was so sad to see what the town was going through so that a few people could benefit. ìHow soon are you going to make a decision? This town has been so upset for so long.î

G. Rodriguez said, ìI heard this gentleman said he drove this road quite often. When one of you elderly hit a little one because your reflexes are not as good who is going to be responsible?î This comment was met with a lot of booing from the crowd. ìYou have the power to stop this. If a little kid runs out and they hit them.î

Tudie Cowdery said that the board has heard what the majority wants.

After the rebuttals, Reuvers said he had four areas to address.

#1: Access by easements. Because the Johnsons were not willing to agree to an easement it would not be legally valid. He said it was offered, but must be accepted. They canít force them to accept an easement. Non-acceptance of the easement would put the county into potential litigation because the Johnsons could be landlocked.

#2: The indemnification issue was at the boardís discretion, but there have been significant costs so far.

#3: This matter is at the discretion of the board. Even if the first two issues were addressed and satisfied, the board still has the final say.

#4: The litigation with Johnson was dismissed without prejudice before which means it can be brought before the court again.

He suggested the board take into account all the comments and mull them over and then continue the discussion on May 13 at 1 p.m. in the county board room.

Commissioner David Kircher asked that Reuvers prepare two resolutions so both could be discussed at the meeting. One should be in favor of the vacation and one against.