Weston County commissioners authorize attorney to draft easement for Old Highway 85 bridge; survey and width questions remain

The Weston County Board of Commissioners voted to authorize the county attorney to work with a landowner to draft an easement for the Old Highway 85 bridge, but commissioners and staff said they still must verify public records and confirm whether a new survey is needed.

The board instructed the county attorney to coordinate with landowner Mr. Erwin to create “an easement approximately 300 yards long,” and discussed reducing an originally proposed 250-foot right-of-way to a 100-foot right-of-way with an additional 75-foot construction easement, with county-incurred survey and fencing costs identified in draft language. Commissioner Wagner moved the authorization, and Commissioner Todd seconded the motion during the meeting.

Why this matters: the county said it needs a clear easement at the bridge to allow construction and ongoing maintenance. Commissioners and public participants raised concerns about the width needed to preserve and maintain the road and bridge, who would pay for fencing and surveys, and whether the county’s records already establish an easement.

Board discussion focused on three practical questions: how wide the easement must be to allow maintenance and future work, whether a survey is required, and which costs the county will absorb. County staff read draft minutes showing that Superintendent Hanson sought a 100-foot repair easement clause in the agreement; some commissioners argued for retaining a wider easement near the bridge, saying 60 feet was inadequate for long-term road preservation.

County staff and a local surveyor reported differing findings on whether a new survey was required. Brooke (county staff) said she had spoken with the surveying contractor and was told “there was no need for a survey to be done because she found all records,” and that copies of those records were available to the county. Other staff, including the assessor’s office, said they had not located a recorded easement in county records and recommended the attorney and staff review the documents before finalizing the legal description.

The motion recorded on the meeting minutes directed the county attorney to work with Mr. Erwin on an easement “approximately 300 yards long, 250 foot wide from the railroad bridge going southwest to tie up to where the current right of way is…we will reduce the 250 foot wide right of way to 100 foot right of way with an additional 75 foot construction easement on the edge…with all survey costs and fencing incurred by the county,” language moved by Commissioner Wagner and seconded by Commissioner Todd. The transcript and minutes show discussion and subsequent staff follow-up but do not contain a formal roll-call vote tally for that motion in the excerpt provided.

County staff asked for time to review records, exhibits and prior minutes and to provide copies of documents to interested parties; staff also referred to a November 7 deadline for related paperwork. The board discussed the possibility of using county road funds to pay for fence or survey work if a recorded easement is confirmed and recommended follow-up with the county attorney’s office and the assessor’s office to reconcile records.

Next steps recorded in the discussion included: the county attorney drafting an easement agreement with Mr. Erwin; staff reviewing and circulating the documentary records the surveyor provided; confirmation whether a new survey is required; and returning to the board with suggested language and any maps or exhibits. The transcript indicates staff will return to the commissioners with recommendations at a subsequent meeting but does not record a final executed easement in the excerpt provided.

The discussion on Old Highway 85 was one of the substantive items the board handled during the meeting; commissioners expressed differing views about the appropriate right-of-way width and emphasized the need to get the legal description and records correct before incurring additional survey or construction expenditures.