Commission Pressed To Continue Jinney Lane Maintenance

Discussion over Jinney Lane heated up on Tuesday as a group of residents pressured the commission to provide maintenance on the road, which was discontinued when an investigation found it was not part of the county system.

The group is represented by attorney Brooks Kenagy and a petition was filed in late February. 

Jinney Lane is located in District 1, but is maintained by District 2. District 2 Commissioner Jared Boast led the investigation. 

Jinney Lane was part of a special road district that was dissolved sometime in the 1980s.

Boast found that Jinney Lane had only appeared on the County Aid Road Trust (CART) Fund list in 2016, though Kenagy said it also was on the list in 2017. 

The only other documents Boast said he could find in the road file for Jinney Lane was a letter in July 2003 proposing a chip-and-seal of the road, with the residents paying half.

Boast also told the group it was possible that maintenance could have been done on the roads without the knowledge of a commissioner. 

One of the residents told the commission in February that his relative had been employed by the county and had performed maintenance work on Jinney Lane for several years.

That employee was David Eaton, who addressed the commission on April 9 and said maintenance had been done on the road with the knowledge of previous foremen and commissioners.

Kenagy presented a letter from Robert Cunningham, a former employee who said the county began maintenance between 1989 and 1990. 

Cunningham said in his letter that he graded roads and plowed snow on Jinney Lane.

Kenagy said the road was maintained for 30 years and that after 10 years, the county cannot stop.

Boast asked if Kenagy or anyone else had paperwork on the absorption of the special road district into the county system. 

“All the information we’ve come back with found Jinney Lane was a non-county road,” Boast said.

Boast told Kenagy they were following the advice of Prosecuting Attorney David Smith in ending maintenance. He said he would give the group the specifications that would bring Jinney Lane up to county standards. 

Kenagy said there are eight families living on the road and they have relied on county maintenance for 30 years. The road is accessed by a school bus and the United States Postal Service.

Both Boast and Cummings said they wanted more information on the special road district. Kenagy suggested delaying a final decision until more research could be done.

The commission agreed, with Boast saying that he’s open to any information being provided on the special road district.

“There is no catch-all,” he said. “There is nothing saying, ‘special road district out today, Crawford County in tomorrow.’” 

Discovery

Commissioners were pressed by the group to explain what led to the discovery of Jinney Lane not belonging to the county.

One of the indicators was that the road is identified as a “lane.” Boast explained that most roads ending in “lane” or “drive” are private.

District 1 Commissioner Rob Cummings said a loan company had contacted him because a veteran was interested in purchasing property, but found that the road was not owned by the county.

He was cut off by one of the residents, who alleged that Cummings was “(expletive) off” that the company kept calling.

“They were aggravating you,” the resident said.

“No, they weren’t aggravating. They called to ask how we were preceding,” Cummings said. “They couldn’t give a loan to this vet.”

“So it was done because the vet wanted a loan,” said the resident.

The commission said no.

“That’s what I just heard,” the resident replied.

“The loan company determined it wasn’t a county road,” Cummings said. “Jared went to researching it. The information he found said it wasn’t a county road.”

The resident accused Cummings of turning the road over to Boast because he didn’t want to maintain it anymore.

“No,” Cummings said. “That portion of District 1 is under the authority of Commissioner Boast.”

The resident accused the commission of dropping it “for what, we don’t know” and said the county should have known in 2003 it wasn’t in its system.

“There’s a lot of its and buts about it,” the resident said. “You better start maintaining it.”

County Clerk John Martin steered the discussion back to Kenagy, who asked if the road ending in “lane” was a problem. 

Martin told Kenagy it was not and pointed out that the county maintains other “lanes.” 

“The bank was the catalyst that sparked the investigation,” he said.