The city of Lampasas and local property owner Kim Garrett will take a disagreement over the appraised value of easements near the new high school construction site to a hearing Jan. 15 at 10 a.m. in Lampasas City Council Chambers.

District 27 Judge Joe Carroll has appointed a three-member commission to consider the issue.

The city is trying to acquire through eminent domain a 20- foot-wide permanent easement for a 795kV electric feeder line that will serve the new Lampasas High School and eventually connect to the Naruna Substation.

Plans call for the easement to run along an interior fence line in Mrs. Garrett's property near the new high school. The property totals 145 acres, and the permanent easement will occupy .6232 acres, or 27,148 square feet.

"We are not going for ownership" of the entire 145 acres, City Manager Michael Stoldt said.

Along with the permanent easement, city staff plan to acquire a 30-foot-wide temporary construction easement that will remain in effect until the completion of work on the electric line. Techline Inc., which will build the temporary line and tie it in to an existing three-phase electric line on U.S. 281, should be finished with its work by the end of January, Stoldt said.

The easement will follow an interior fence line of a 62-acre field that is used for agricultural purposes, Stoldt said. Techline crews will install concrete structural poles -- one in the corner of Mrs. Garrett's property -- on both sides of Sulphur Creek. The poles do not have guy wires.

In addition, seven wooden poles, which stand 30 to 35 feet above ground, will cross the Garrett property, Stoldt said.

"We looked at other routes," the city manager said. "We don't want to force our way where we're not wanted."

Stoldt said using a route around the Garrett property, though, would have required the city to build extra line and follow Sulphur Creek, which would have made power lines susceptible to flood damage, he added.

"There's not a lot of ways around without adding considerable costs to our customers," he said.

Mrs. Garrett and city staff both obtained appraisals of the easements' values and of the amount of easement-related damages to the rest of the property.

Mrs. Garrett's attorney, Richard Hammett, declined comment on the matter. "We feel it is inappropriate for us to comment on this matter, as it is now an ongoing civil proceeding," Hammett said. "We respectfully refer you to the proceeding, which has been filed in the 27th District Court of Lampasas County, Texas."

Following advice from the city's legal counsel, Stoldt declined to comment on the disparity between the appraised values gathered by the city and by Mrs. Garrett.

An easement had been planned before the Lampasas Independent School District obtained land for a new high school and before Mrs. Garrett owned the 145 acres, Stoldt said.

City staff first contacted Mrs. Garrett about the easement around May of 2008, Stoldt said.

The city has been a party in two recent commissoners hearings about land-related issues. In one instance, the family involved did not contest the city's use of eminent domain because no heir with a claim to the property could be found.

The property owner involved in the other matter did not appear at the hearing.

Stoldt said city staff hope for a quick resolution to the current eminent domain effort.

"We hope it will be settled that day," he said of the Jan. 15 hearing.