Attorney review wanted first

So far, the legal opinion has been withheld from the public, including property owners along the corridor, until an attorney can look it over and decide what should be kept confidential as part of the county's legal strategy in the ongoing debate about a possible recreation trail.

County Board member Neil Paulson said the board had already received the committee's proposal to release the legal opinion and was waiting for a newly-hired attorney to review it before its Aug. 31 meeting. Corporate attorney Bill Bussey recused himself from the matter last month, citing possible conflicts of interest.

Committee Chair Ken "Bucky" Jardine and other committee members said they had no problem releasing the legal opinion to the public, but they agreed that it should be reviewed by the new attorney first.

During discussion, Jardine read existing laws that say ownership of the abandoned corridor reverts back to the federal government and that counties can use the corridors for public highways or recreational trails.

In addition, he tried to clarify the committee's position on the corridor.
First of all, he said there was never any intention to put a motorized trail along the trail north of Washburn because one already exists.

Jardine said their plan was to acquire a trail in the southern end of the county by making deals with property owners along the corridor so that the trail would cross their property at alternate locations. In exchange, the county would give up its claim to those portions of the corridor.

"However, in that process, if one guy refuses that trail, it's basically over," Jardine said.
Because of that possibility, Jardine said the county may instead seek to guarantee its rights over the entire corridor so that it could proceed with a new trail.

At the same time, since the federal government legally owns the corridor, the county may have no authority to grant quitclaim deeds to property owners in exchange for easements on other parts of their property.

Committee member Ralph Frostman had a slightly different plan.

"I don't think that I'd be in favor of giving them away," Frostman said. "I'd be happy with selling them."

Property owners in the audience had different interpretations of the law.

Retired attorney Claudia Hoogasian said she would stand by her property rights over the corridor if the case went to court.

"My property will revert to me, and that is a legal opinion," she said.

Property owner Mike Jackson, a member of the ad-committee to discuss the corridor, also noted what he believes is an exception to the law.

"If it wasn't public land back then, it won't revert back to the federal government now," Jackson said.

Earl Orner, spokesperson for the Bayfield County Snowmobile Alliance, presented a statement urging the board to reject landowner John Hawksford's proposal for the county to issue quiet claims for all landowners along the entire right-of-way and try to negotiate a reroute from Drummond to Cable.

Instead, the Alliance recommends the county adopt a "resolution declaring all or part of the right-of-way to a public trail" and then seek permanent reroutes by using the process Jardine explained.

Hawksford was in the audience Wednesday and said the county should not assume it knows the correct interpretation of the law.

"I'm getting really sick of you guys touting your expertise on this," Hawksford said. "So, get your stuff together and let's go before a competent judge."