Edinburgh owners show interest in county farm parcel

     After the Jones County Supervisors already awarded a bid for $600 to SC Oberbreckling to demolish a shed on the county farm near Edinburgh, the owner of the neighboring property requested to purchase the parcel of land in which the shed sits.

     The board heard from Cindy Anderson, a trustee of Q Farm Land Trust, which owns and operates the former Edinburgh Manor, adjacent to the county farm. Anderson also had a guest speak on the issue, who wished to remain anonymous. They wished to purchase the property the shed sits on because they store some items inside the shed.

     The county plans to have the shed torn down by May 1. Supervisor Jon Zirkelbach recently notified Anderson of the county’s plans, knowing some of their possessions from the Manor might be stored inside.

     Anderson said they also mow the grounds around the shed for the county.

     “It’s part of the county’s aesthetics,” she said of the look of the old shed and a plea to keep it intact. “A lot of people are interested in history, of the origin of the poor farm.”

     Anderson said if they were allowed to purchase the parcel and shed, they would replace the tin and make it look decent.

     “Maintaining the aesthetics are extremely important to the history of the county farm,” said Anderson’s guest. “We want to continue use of the shed for outside storage.”

     If the county was not interested in selling the property, the owners of the Manor said they would be forced to build a similar structure on their property. They informed the supervisors that they had a verbal agreement to store items inside the shed from a previous county supervisor, though nothing was in writing on record and they did not know who the supervisor was they talked to several years ago when the county sold the Manor in 2009.

     “It works perfect for our needs and we’d like to continue to use it,” continued Anderson’s guest.

     “We would have never put our items in the building if we didn’t have permission,” added Anderson.

     Zirkelbach said the current condition of the shed is a potential liability to the county.

     “It’s been there for 50 to 60 years and hasn’t been destroyed yet,” said the guest.

     “This would be a lot more timely if we’d had this discussion a few weeks ago,” said Supervisor Ned Rohwedder, referring to when the board received demolition bids.

     Both Anderson and her guest said they were unaware the county wanted to tear down the building because they do not read any of the county newspapers.

     “We’re willing to do whatever it takes,” the guest said of keeping the shed. “For $600, it seems like a mistake to tear it down.”

     County Attorney Kristofer Lyons advised the supervisors not to break their contract with SC Oberbreckling. However, if the board chose to sell or lease the parcel, it would have to be offered for public bid, not just the interested party.

     The board was in agreement that the shed needed to go, to make room for a potentially larger building on the county farm to offer much-needed storage space.

     “It’s become an eye sore with the lack of maintenance,” commented Rohwedder. “There’s no special use for it.”

     Anderson said they would be out the money spent to maintain the property all these years if the county tore it down. Her guest said a verbal agreement is just as valid as a written one. Lyons felt otherwise.

     “The board could certainly revoke that,” he said. “That’s why it needed to be in writing.”

     “It’s in the best interest of the county to remove it for future improvements,” added Supervisor Wayne Manternach.

     The board urged Anderson to work with SC Oberbreckling on the timing of the demolition to have their items removed. They also encouraged them to contact Michele Lubben with Land Use regarding erecting their own structure on their property.