Township official: Crops on county farm planted in our right-of-way

Highway commissioner says he’ll have land surveyed
FORD COUNTY BOARD



NIEWOLD

NIEWOLD

PAXTON — Button Township Highway Commissioner Ron Hilligoss told the Ford County Board during a special meeting Monday, June 30, that he plans to hire a land surveyor to confirm the township’s right-of-way along County Road 200 North, where he believes the county’s tenant farmer — as others apparently did previously — is growing crops within the township’s easement and without the township’s permission.

Hilligoss made that pledge after the county board declined to pursue any immediate measures to address his concerns. State’s Attorney Andrew Killian suggested no action be taken until Hilligoss first shows “proof” through a land survey.

“I don’t know that we would simply say, because Ron (or anyone else) said so, ‘This is the facts,’” Killian told the board. “If Ron and the township want to have a survey done — and the survey establishes where our rightof way is — then we’d adjust (the farming of the land) accordingly. … But I don’t know that we have to do anything at this point. … As the non-aggrieved party … it wouldn’t make sense, I don’t think, to proactively do that without some proof that we’re in the wrong.”

This aerial image shows Ford County Road 200 North east of Paxton where the Bowen/Grider Farm is located. Courtesy of Ron Hilligoss

This aerial image shows Ford County Road 200 North east of Paxton where the Bowen/Grider Farm is located. Courtesy of Ron Hilligoss

Hilligoss said he would have the survey done “as soon as possible.”

“I’ll have it surveyed. We’ll know,” Hilligoss told the board. “I will take care of that and give that information to you and you can do what you want.”

In the meantime, the board made plans to look into whether an agreement already exists between the county and township related to the right-of-way’s usage, or if one instead needs to be created.

The county-owned farm in question — known as the Bowen/Grider Farm or “Farm No. 2”— is one of three currently being farmed by Nick Purcell under cashrent leases expiring this November. Purcell’s attorney was in attendance, advising Hilligoss and the board that if the right-of-way along the farm property ends up needing to be adjusted for accuracy, those measurements would need to be applied to existing utilities, too — not just the crops planted within it. Moreover, the attorney advised, if the township were to require an easement agreement with the county for planting crops within the easement, it would need to have that same requirement for the other farmers in the 36-square-mile township.

“If we’re doing one and saying, ‘It’s within the easement,’ you’d have to start looking at every single one of them,” the attorney advised before adding, “This is going to be a giant can of worms.”

“Where we go from here is not a simple thing,” he continued. “It’s not just, ‘Oh, here’s the measurement,’ because if we’re going to go, ‘Here’s the measurement,’ on (Purcell and the county), we have to go do it on every other property that has this easement with it.”

The attorney noted that Purcell has been farming the land just “as it had been farmed prior to him leasing it from the county.”

County board member Greg Niewold of rural Loda, chairman of the board’s farm committee, said the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s local Farm Service Agency office confirmed that the farm’s property line, including some of Purcell’s farmable acreage, is within the township’s easement, just as Hilligoss claimed.

Niewold said he assumes the easement is 66 feet, spanning 33 feet on each side from the center of the road. Looking at FSA maps, Niewold said, it appears the first row of Purcell’s crops are as little as 29 feet to as much as 38 feet from the center of the road, depending on the location.

However, Niewold pointed out that a neighboring farmer to the south has crops planted even closer — at “25 or 26 feet” from the center of the road.

“So, I don’t think this is (specifically) a ‘Nick Purcell problem,’ to be honest with you,” Niewold told the board.

“I think it might be a permission problem,” board member Cindy Ihrke of rural Roberts replied.

Citing information provided by Hilligoss, Ihrke noted that highway commissioners can require permits to ensure that crop plantings “don’t interfere with their road maintenance.”

“For safety, it is crucial to get proper authorization before planting in the rightof way to avoid potential issues,” Ihrke said, reading from the information provided by Hilligoss. “Any work (done) within the right-ofway, including planting, requires a permit issued by the township highway commissioner. A bond is also typically required and is fully refundable after the project is complete and no damage is found.”

Whether the county has ever obtained such a permit was not immediately known, although some board members expressed doubts.

“Nobody asked (for the township’s permission) to go into the easement, and I think that’s part of the problem,” Ihrke said. “I think if permission was granted (by the township) and they knew it was happening, it would be a different story.”

Niewold then pointed out what Purcell’s attorney already did: If a permit for use of the right-of-way is to be required, that requirement would need to apply to all other farmers in the township, too.

“(Purcell) is (planting crops) no closer (to the road) than 90-plus percent of every other farmer in that 36 square miles (of township),” Niewold said. “I’m just saying, you’ve got 36 square miles and 640 acres per section, so there better be a mountain full of permits.”

Niewold said his research showed that the Bowen/ Grider Farm has been farmed the same way for decades, as have many other farms in Button Township.

“Greg Niewold’s point to Mr. Killian, if this goes this far, is, ‘There’s going to be a lot of measuring that has to get done in Button Township if (the township is) going to go after Ford County as the landowner on this one situation,” Niewold said. “Because I think there would be a lot of pissed-off farmers if we start mowing down crops (in the right-of-way). Because where he is farming is no different than 90-plus percent of the other people for 36 square miles of farms.”

Killian said he agreed that any permit requirement could not be selectively enforced.

“There is an issue of the enactment of laws on individual landowners and not on everyone as in the same class,” Killian said. “So that does have to be examined.”

Killian also pointed out that if a survey reveals that adjustments are needed to correct the easement, those adjustments could effect the use of other nearby properties, too.

“If we do have to shift ours over 5 feet one way, then that moves the neighbor across the road’s farmable acreage over 5 feet,” Killian said as an example. “Doing that could effect property rights for everyone in the township if they’re all adjusted.”

Board member Tom Mc- Quinn of rural Paxton suggested a survey be done to resolve the concerns, and Hilligoss agreed.

“Then you know exactly where you’re at, where you should be and where you shouldn’t be,” Hilligoss said.

Further discussion on the right-of-way topic, among others related to the county farms, is expected at a future meeting of the full board or its farm or highway committees. The next full board meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m. Monday, July 14, in the board room in the basement of the sheriff’s office and jail in Paxton.