Property owner objects to countynotice on Dutch John Draw easement, urges negotiation over eminent domain

Thompson Davis, a Dutch John property owner, told the Daggett County Commission during the public comment period that a proposed county resolution and notice about a permanent utility easement for Dutch John Draw contained misleading language and implied the county had already finalized negotiations.

Davis said the county—s notice (identified in meeting discussion as related to a proposed resolution, cited by Davis as "25 0 1") misstated the status of negotiations and the appraisals underlying the county's position. He described a long-running disagreement over a roughly 39-acre parcel in Dutch John, criticized an appraisal he called "off base," and urged the commission to meet with him before moving forward with eminent domain.

The exchange mattered because the county told Davis it intends to proceed with both continued negotiation and the formal legal process if a negotiated settlement cannot be reached. A commissioner told Davis that the county cannot act on an item that is not on the agenda and that, for clarity and transparency, the county intends to re-notice the matter (the commission said the applicable public notice period is 10 working days). Commissioners also said they are open to additional meetings or a closed-session negotiation and that, if terms are agreed, the county can halt the legal process.

Davis disputed aspects of the county's account of events. He said the county's explanation that multiple appraisals had been reviewed was incorrect and that county and owner appraisals differ by roughly $400,000 (commission discussion described the difference as "three hundred and some thousand dollars"). Davis said the county's appraiser treated the site like undeveloped grazing land rather than as in-town, utility-served property bordered by a highway and Forest Service land. He called the county's last apparent alternative —taking by eminent domain— and said that outcome would leave him facing substantial legal costs.

Commissioners responded that negotiation has been attempted over years and that the county—s recent offers and counterproposals had not closed the gap. One commissioner described a prior proposal to square and realign the dirt road through the parcel, move utility alignments to run beneath the road, and thereby free up the remainder of the property for development; commissioners also said that any road relocation would be subject to town permitting standards, including curb, gutter and hard-surface requirements under Dutch John rules.

Commissioners discussed a tentative site visit by Department of Corrections staff to the county—s jail site, and noted they had met with state corrections representatives about potential state procurement of the facility; they said the state would be visiting the county facility (dates mentioned included March 5 and March 12 in discussion, and commissioners said the date needed verification). In the context of the easement dispute, commissioners emphasized they remain willing to meet and may schedule a closed-session negotiation. They also said that, procedurally, the county will re-notice the proposed action with the 10-working-day notice and place it on a future agenda (a commissioner indicated that, unless negotiations result in a settlement, the legal process would continue and that a judge ultimately would determine compensation if eminent domain proceeds).

Davis asked that language he considered misleading be revised and requested additional conversations and negotiation. Commissioners said they would review Davis' specific objections to the notice wording and follow up with staff and counsel. No final vote or change to the county's course of action was recorded during the meeting; commissioners stated the county's intent to both continue legal processes if needed and to remain open to negotiation that could halt or alter that process.

Key clarifying details discussed in the meeting included that the parcel identified by Davis is about 39 acres, the county and owner appraisals differ by roughly $400,000 (as described on the record), the permanent easement at issue was described in debate as 25 feet (commissioner discussion referenced a mistaken 50-foot assumption in one appraisal), and that county staff stated the public-notice requirement for adding the item to a future agenda is 10 working days.

If no settlement is reached, commissioners said the court would ultimately determine just compensation; if the parties reach agreement, the county said it could stop the legal process. Davis repeatedly requested continued direct negotiation and a closed-session opportunity; commissioners invited him to schedule that meeting with county staff and counsel.