Mercer County commissioners defer decision on Coyote Creek Road; landowner, mine and county to negotiate easements

Mercer County commissioners postponed a final decision on restoring Coyote Creek Road after a lengthy discussion on Thursday that brought the county attorney, mine representatives and affected landowners to the meeting.

The dispute centers on whether the county should restore the road to its pre-mining alignment, and who must secure or pay for easements where no formal recorded right-of-way exists. County State’s Attorney Todd said the county could pursue an easement by prescription or secure recorded easements, but warned either route carries legal and survey costs.

The debate matters because the mine needs the road reconstruction completed to finish reclamation work in the area, while landowner Casey Boyd and other neighbors have pressed for the route to be returned to the alignment they used before mining. Jeremy, who represented the mining company at the meeting, told commissioners, “The route that we discussed in March, we’re…good with. It’s basically going back to what it was premined.” State’s Attorney Todd told the board the county could enforce a prescriptive easement in court but that securing a recorded right-of-way would be cleaner for future county maintenance.

Commissioners and the mine said practical constraints — topography, drainage and the location of disturbed ground — complicate putting a new county-grade road exactly on the original alignment or on a section line. Commissioners noted options include: (1) negotiating recorded easements and rebuilding the road on the historic alignment; (2) the county building an alternate section-line route (a longer, more expensive option that would require more construction); or (3) seeking a court judgment recognizing a prescriptive easement if the landowner and the company cannot agree.

The county asked Boyd to consult his family and present a proposed compensation figure for easements before the commission’s next meeting. Commissioners said they would weigh that number against the cost of litigation or building a new section-line road. Todd advised that any negotiated easement should include a clear definition of the right-of-way width and the intended construction standard.

The commission did not vote on any motion or authorize construction at the meeting. Commissioners said they want township, state and survey information compiled, and asked the parties and the county attorney to return with more-detailed proposals. Commissioners also noted earlier agreements dating back to 2016 referencing reconstruction obligations; those documents will be re-examined as part of follow-up work.

For now, the road remains unbuilt and the mine said it is pausing reclamation work that depends on an access route until the easement question is resolved. Commissioners set a goal for the landowner to submit a monetary proposal to the auditor before the next meeting so the board can consider concrete options then.

Ending: The commission scheduled the issue for continued discussion at the next meeting and asked the mine and landowners to negotiate in the interim, with county counsel available to review proposed easement language.