Tanglewood residents charge commission with side-stepping public roads issue

By Charlene Sims, infor@linncountyjournal.com

MOUND CITY – After hearing comments from several Tanglewood Lakes residents, including a board member from the property association, Linn County commissioners Alison Hamilton and Jim Johnson on Monday, May 19, voted to approve a motion that referred back to a resolution passed by the commission more than a decade ago.

Hamilton explained that this referred to all lake communities in Linn County that are privately owned and will continue to stay privately owned and maintained by those particular gated communities. Commissioner Jason Hightower was absent from the meeting.

While the motion dealt with standard traffic ordinances applied to unnamed areas of the county, those who wanted a definitive commission stance on whether the roads in the Tanglewood development are public or private were not satisfied.

Resolution 2014-16 that is referred by Hamilton to has a heading that summarizes the resolution. The heading on the resolution reads: “An resolution of the governing body of Linn County, Kansas, adopting the standard traffic ordinance within certain defined areas of the county and otherwise regulating traffic within the county.”

In a phone interview, Tanglewood Lake resident and former member of the Tanglewood Lake Owners Association board Jim Hendershot said he didn’t believe they made a motion answering the question of whether the roads are public or private. The resolution just has to do with whether lake communities want their roads enforced. He said he thought this was just a stalling tactic.

Chuck Stevens, Tanglewood Lake Owners Association (TLOA) president, had no comment about the motion.

Tanglewood resident Eva Riojas-Mackey, who helped make a case in district court that the roads in the development were meant to be public, was adamant in a phone interview that the commission’s motion did not address the issue.

“I think it’s a shame my county officials continue to fail my community,” Riojas-Mackey said. “It was evident none of them even looked at any of the information I provided to them three weeks prior when I addressed them. There was more information there than a 10 minute executive session could cover.

“All they accomplished is walking us in a complete circle, Resolution 2014-16 is nothing more than an ordinance to enforce traffic laws in the lake development. It further goes on to state that all of our roads should be treated as public so that enforcement can take place.

“So for them to say that, that’s what they’re going to stand on, and then say that our roads should be treated as private and that they’re not going to maintain them, is a contradiction in and of itself. It is very clear they just wanted us out of their meeting.”

Tanglewood residents attending the commission meeting expressed dissatisfaction with the commission’s motion.

The TLOA is putting off maintenance on the roads until they have been informed in writing that the roads were public and were a responsibility of the county or were private and should be taken care of by the TLOA.

At Monday’s commission meeting the first speaker on the issue was Riojas-Mackey, who said she was there to follow up from her presentation from three weeks ago. She said that she had not heard from anybody.

Riojas-Mackey said that she had been trying to get hold of her commissioner and had no success. His voicemail is full so she can’t even leave a message.

“I’ve emailed. I’ve text. I haven’t gotten a response. I tried you, Ali. I left you a voicemail. I know you’re not my direct commissioner. You are a commissioner. You are the one that said you guys would get back with me. I just wanted to know if you guys had anything to say or if we’ve come to . . .” she said.

“I don’t have one,” said Hamilton.

“Okay. So do we just need to move forward with a lawsuit? That’s what I am wanting to know. I mean, the more it rains, the worse our roads are getting,” said Riojas-Mackey.

“We’ve made a public statement regarding that though,” said Hamilton.

“Correct and I’ve spoke after that and was told that you would get back with me,” said Riojas-Mackey.

“We made a public statement after that here with our attorney,” said Hamilton.

“When was that?” asked Riojas-Mackey. 

“We’ll have to look up the minutes,” replied Hamilton.

The minutes of the April 28 meeting where Riojas-Mackey spoke show no reply to her request. Neither do the May 5 county clerk minutes which are the last ones published on the website.

Next, Jim Hendershot, Tanglewood resident, handed out documents to the commissioners that supported his presentation.

Information that Hendershot presented was:

• County Clerk board minutes showing the history of how the issue of public versus private roads had transpired since March 17. He continued to go through the minutes including April 28, where Riojas-Mackey spoke, providing materials about why the roads are public, and stating that if the Tanglewood gates are returned to operation, she would tear them down again per the district court ruling. After the county counselor, Jacklyn Paletta, took Riojas-Mackey’s comments as the threat of a lawsuit, she advised the county commission to abstain from comment until she could review the “plethora” of material provided by Riojas-Mackey. She also advised the board of county commissioners on how to respond.

•  A resolution dated Jan. 13, 1974, approved by the county commissioners recorded in the county’s Register of Deeds office that approves and accepts 33 plats for Tanglewood.

• A resolution dated Jan. 29, 1974, approved by the county commissioners  recorded in the register of deeds office approving and accepting another additional 11 plats for Tanglewood. 

• A document dated June 28, 1974, that reports an entry recorded by the Register of Deeds Dolly Jameson stating that a complete plat of Tanglewood was provided to her office for recording, that the plat was too large for copying, but is indexed on each of the Tanglewood plats that were previously recorded.

• A copy of dedication language that is contained on the individual plats from Tanglewood that states that we the owners of Tanglewood Lake subdivision, plat number (fill in the appropriate number) Linn County, Kansas, do hereby publish, declare and acknowledge the plat thereof with the lots, streets and utility easements as shown thereon and to hereby dedicate all streets as shown on the plat to the public forever.

Hendershot said that these bring up some very important questions. Hendershot questioned when the decision was made that was stated at the April 29 meeting that the decision of the commission was that the roads remain private and that there will not be a resolution to change anything. 

“My question is when was this decision made and is this the official position of the board of county commission, or is it the position of the county counselor?” asked Hendershot.

“Number two, referring back to the April 28 meeting, County Counselor Paletta shared it that the district court ruling was a criminal case and this is a civil matter that does not affect zoning. As a retired zoning official, I offer this matter has nothing to do with zoning,” said Hendershot.

“Number three, refer back again  to the April 28 meeting, County Counselor Paletta stated that the county has never used or maintained the roads within Tanglewood and that will not change,” said Hendershot.

“Again, I ask is this the official position of the county commission or of legal counsel?” asked Hendershot.

Hendershot’s last point is again referring back to the April 28 minutes.

“County Counselor Paletta advised the board of county commission to abstain from comments to Miss Mackey’s presentation ‘til she could review the material provided by Miss Mackey and advise the county commission on how to respond. My questions is, and obviously it is again for Miss Mackey, has that response been provided?” asked Hendershot.

Hendershot’s conclusion said that all documents and information on this matter indicate the roads are public. This includes court rulings, accepted and recorded plats, dedicated language on these plats. 

Lack of decision 'confusing'

Hendershot continued, “It is confusing that the board of county commissioners can responsibly take the position of the roads are private without some type of official action that would be contrary to the plat and court ruling. 

“Again, I emphasize, the commission has not taken an official position but rather the county counselor has spoken for you without any vote on the position by the county commission. This has happened in the past with a formal legal county counselor issuing a letter of opinion that the roads are private. We all know this is nothing more than an opinion and has no legal standing but certainly adds to the confusion.”

“I can see a vicious cycle unfolding in the future,” Hendershot warned. “The county commission unofficially says the roads are private. The courts ruled the roads are public. Currently the gates to Tanglewood are open and in compliance with the district court. At some future point in time, the Tanglewood board, unaware of the history of the matter, decides to reactivate the gates because the county commission                                                                                                                                                             or their legal counsel unofficially stated the roads are private. As promised, Ms. Riojas-Mackey has the gates torn down. Soon, all are back in court and we all know the position of the district court. 

“All current and future confusion can be clarified if the board of county commission takes an official stance. Something as simple as a motion, a second and a vote to be recorded in the minutes. 

“I understand the financial burden to the county with 26 additional miles of public roads added to the budget and public work scheduling. As a result, Tanglewood has offered partnership considerations to ease this burden. To my knowledge, Tanglewood has yet to receive a response on this concept. 

“I am not here before you today advocating for public or private streets. I am here asking the commission to do something official. Something other than Chairman Johnson stating that the roads have always been private. 

“So as far as I am concerned, they are private as he stated in a previous meeting. Something other that the county counselor announcing an unknown decision by the board of county commissioners that the roads are private and that no other further action will be taken.

“As elected officials, you are expected to and have responsibility for making difficult decisions. Please take official action on this matter to enable all parties to move on in a responsible manner.”                                                                                                                                                               

Lack of decision affects property sales

The next person to speak was Heather Brecht, resident at Tanglewood Lakes and a real estate agent. She told the commissioner that there has been tremendous growth there and increased property values. 

Brecht told the commissioners that the county needed to recognize that the future tax growth and base is concentrated in the lake communities. She explained that, when listing a property, there are certain field that need to be filled out and one of those is whether the roads are public or private. She asked how she was supposed to answer that.

Brecht told the commissioners that these road issues are affecting property sales. She said that people see the drama in the media and want nothing to do with it. 

“We need action from you. An action saying that they are private is a joke, holds no legal weight and provides us no clear path forward,” Brecht told the commissioners. 

She asked that the commissioners start taking the lake communities more seriously because they were the county’s future tax growth.

Last, Tanglewood resident Don Bendetti, who said he did not represent the board of directors, spoke to the commissioners. 

“As a follow up to Jim’s and Heather’s comments, all the documents and the judge’s decision show that Tanglewood is public,” said Bendetti. “Although I disagree with this fact, one of two things really need to be done. The commissioners really need to accept the fact that Tanglewood is public and put this acknowledgement in a legal document. Given this, the county needs to make some form of restitution for the 50-plus years of property taxes that have been paid and no direct services provided to Tanglewood Lakes. 

“Additionally establish an agreement for ongoing support. Based on what I heard this morning on paving roads on 1095, right now is the perfect time to make the decision to redirect those funds to paving the roads in Tanglewood Lake. We would much prefer to see the roads in Tanglewood Lake paved than a resurfacing of 1095.

“Another option for you is to officially document that Tanglewood has not been accepted as public and that the county deems Tanglewood to be private. This should not negate the fact that Tanglewood should start receiving some sort of benefits for our tax dollars. 

“So far it appears that the commission is not going to take any action other than verbally say that Tanglewood is private. We refuse to put this in a legally binding document. So, be advised, that myself and several other owners are looking into starting a class action lawsuit against the commissioners and the county.

“Also because of the lack of inaction, we plan on contacting all of the news media. 

There has been a lot of interest in rogue homeowners associations. It will be interesting to see how rogue county commissioners plays out.”

Bendetti did credit and thank the sheriff’s office for the increased patrolling and hope that we get this additional support during the holiday weekend.