Committee tables decision on Horace rail corridor sale after landowner concerns; asks for more outreach

The Diversion Authority Land Management Committee voted Feb. 26 to table consideration of a multi-parcel sale of a former rail corridor in Horace after committee members raised concerns about policy compliance, adjacent-landowner interest and the complexity of dividing the corridor for sale.

Eric Dodds of AE2S told the committee that the corridor parcels (labeled OIN 7234 B, C and D in staff materials) were acquired from the railroad after the railroad completed its statutory abandonment process and that the authority’s agreement required the project to purchase leftover railroad land. The parcels include varying widths (about 200 feet in parts, narrowing to about 100 feet) and are encumbered by utilities and a flow easement in places. Dodds said the authority’s excess-land policy prefers member entities first, then former owners, then adjacent landowners, and then public sale. The City of Horace asked for a variance to buy the corridor as a single chunk and offered to assume the legal, survey and planning work necessary for the sale.

Committee member Jake Gust told the committee he had received an “extensive email” from a landowner alleging the authority had not followed its policy and recommended meeting with the City of Horace and the objecting landowner to resolve the dispute and avoid criticism or possible litigation. Gust asked the committee to table the item. Some committee members raised timing questions and maintenance concerns, and staff estimated it could cost roughly $50,000 in staff, consultant and legal time to prepare plats, surveys and purchase agreements for many adjacent parcels.

Mr. Flacco moved to table the item until a meeting in March to allow more outreach; Jake Gust seconded. The motion passed by roll call with all members present voting yes. During subsequent scheduling discussion staff noted the committee typically meets Wednesday before the board meeting (staff said Wednesday, March 26 at 3 p.m.) and members discussed calendar conflicts; the chair set a March meeting date to revisit the item.

Committee members emphasized two competing risks: (1) delaying disposition increases maintenance costs and encroachment/trespass exposure; and (2) moving forward with a variance to sell the corridor as a single chunk risks criticism from adjacent owners who expect a policy-driven preference order. Staff said possible paths forward include negotiating a uniform proposal with adjacent landowners, selling the corridor in several chunks, or granting a policy variance if the committee directs.

The committee’s tabling vote was a recommendation to the Diversion Authority; final action by the full authority remains required.