Wallace City Council approves land vacation

WALLACE — A much debated over petition for land vacation that had been presented to the Wallace City Council was granted Wednesday night in a 3-1-2 vote.

Voting in favor was Councilman Dave DaRoos and Elmer Mattila, along with Councilwoman Michele Bisconer.

“The petitioner is wanting to get the land to maintain it so he can maybe put up a retaining wall," Bisconer said before casting her vote. “I think that in itself is good for the city. I think that it will prevent any runoff or slippage.”

With Councilman Rick Shaffer absent and Dean Cooper recusing himself from the proceeding in order to avoid personal conflict, Councilwoman Heather Branstetter was the only one in opposition.

“I think we should have another public hearing with a proper survey with a new petition,” she said. "I don’t think we should make this decision with the information we currently have and the process we have gone through up until this point.”

The petition, submitted by Wallace resident Greg Nickel on April 8 asks for the city to vacate a portion of property on Wilson Street (the far east end of Pearl Street) and have it divided up equally among adjoining property owners (including himself).

Nickel explained at the July 14 council meeting, where the proposed ordinance was tabled, that his reasoning for the petition is largely based on what he sees as unmaintained infrastructure near his home by the city and nebulous property lines.

“What I am proposing to vacate, and the issue regarding to vacate, is the fact that the timber crib, where it lies in regard to the Wilson right-of-way, it’s going to need some work,” he said. “Is it mine? I’d like to take ownership of it so I can repair it…and bring it up to standard.”

Nickel’s goal with the vacation is to also leave the maintenance of the Wilson Street right-of-way to the nearby property owners — as it has not been maintained by the city for decades.

“Let me take liability for Wallace. Just say it is mine, let me deal with that in the future, and relegate that piece of road off the city books and let us take care of it from there.”

The primary opponent to the petition, Wallace land owner Ryder Gauteraux, has argued that in addition to not being properly involved in the petition process (such as being properly notified and mentioned in the petition as an affected property owner), the vacation of land would cut off another potential access point he has to his land.

Charles Jones and Gauteraux purchased 500 acres of land, located south/southeast of Wallace, earlier in 2020 from Layton Land & Timber.

On the ethical side of the equation, there was also the question of whether or not City Councilman Dean Cooper would benefit from the proposed vacation, as he and his family have property in the area. It has also been noted on the record numerous times that Councilman Cooper and Gauteraux have had several heated interactions with one another, both inside and outside of the council chambers, regarding land rights and access.

During the public hearing on July 14, Cooper recused himself from the proceedings and spoke to the council as a citizen — saying that even though the original petition listed him as one of the adjacent property owners that would receive some of the vacated land, he would not be accepting it and wanted none of it. In a later interview with the News-Press, Cooper stated that if the vacation were to be granted in the future, he would not acquire any of the land through private purchase either.

Even with Cooper’s public statements though, the original version of the petition was passed that only includes “Greg and Sandra Nickel and Dean Cooper” as parties that would receive land. This could change however when the draft ordinance is revised and voted on by the council to make the vacation official at a future meeting.

Responding to claims that the vacation would deny Gauteraux a possible access point to his land, Deroos argued at the Aug. 11 meeting that no such access point exists, nor can it ever.

“There cannot be a road there, it is virtually impossible,” he said. “The main thing is that Ryder’s property isn’t really joining this. In order for him to get access to his property from this street, he would have to go through the water company’s property. I spoke with them and they absolutely will not grant an easement for that property.”

While the point of needing to go through water district land was questioned by Branstetter, all council members agreed that due to the harsh terrain, constructing a road by using the Wilson Street right-of-way would be a tall task.

“It seems clear to me, after going up there, that the hillside would not actually support a road,” Branstetter said, “but I do think that we should still consider the possibility of stairs or some other kind of access being feasible as an option in the future.”

She argued that her reasons for voting against the vacation included the lack of a land survey being conducted, the exclusion of Gauteraux in the process, the perception of personal bias, and opening the city up to legal issues.

“My own personal, ethical, worry is that I think that our council may appear to be using our power to potentially cut off an individual from his property,” she said. “I’m not saying that is what is actually happening, but I do think that we should avoid the perception of it and the perception of cronyism and unethical behavior, and whatnot. There are…voting members of the public that have expressed concern about that to me…”

She added that this isn’t the first time Gauteraux had come to the council and requested access to his property.

“In fact, as long ago as September 2020, he was requesting that we not vacate any nearby property along Pearl Street and then after a particularly contentious council meeting on March 20, 2021, Mr. Gauteraux requested access via Pearl Street and/or Weir Gulch. Then it was not until the next month that Mr. Nickel requested the vacation and during that same month, our council correspondence featured a bunch of emails, letters, maps and what appeared to me to be a personal argument between Ryder and Councilman Cooper.”

Branstetter’s points were largely unaddressed by the rest of the council, but DeRoos did comment that the council’s decision cannot be influenced by legal fears.

“To worry about getting sued to influence your decision. We can’t be doing it. If we didn’t grant this, Mr. Nickel could sue us,” he said.

Mattila justified his vote by speaking of the backing the vacation has and briefly touching on land access.

“Greg and Sandra Nickel’s petition to vacate Wilson Street has overwhelming support from their neighbors, Wallace citizens, and city engineer Jim Roletto…” he said. “In reading the letters of support, you note that the city has not maintained the road in 70 plus years. It has been done by the people that live there.”

He added, “the Nickels’ petition to vacate the road had timely paperwork and all publication requirements have been in compliance. A request for vacation does not cancel the right of a property owner with an existing easement. That property owner can still claim an easement against the property owner receiving land granted in a vacation by the city.”

The next Wallace City Council meeting is scheduled for Sept. 8.