07-02-2012 Council Work Session Minutes

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION July 2, 2012 APPROVED 46 Adam Johnson, 2055 Otter Lake Drive. The council was required under statute to set a 47 hearing date. Mr. Grochala reviewed the hearing process as set forth in his report and 48 also reviewed a map of the proposed vicinity and cartway. It appears from everything 49 staff has seen that Mr. Johnson meets those minimum statutory requirements for 50 establishment of a cartway. The next question then becomes damages. The city has 51 escrowed funds from Mr. Johnson for the city expenses. Damages to other landowners is 52 another consideration and while there is not a lot of guidance on the subject included in 53 state statute, Mr. Grochala suggests that it could be construed like an easement situation. 54 The question is whether or not there is any reduction in property value with the addition 55 of the cartway. The council may receive appraisal information presented at the hearing. 56 The mayor confirmed that, if the statutory threshold for a cartway is met in this case, it is 57 not a case of if but how. Mr. Grochala noted the third area of consideration as 58 maintenance-would Mr. Johnson have the same maintenance responsibility/costs as the 59 current owners? Mr. Grochala noted that the City Attorney will assist the council in the 60 hearing process and added that it is within the council's prerogative to table the item as 61 long as the public hearing is opened. He also added that the involved parties have been 62 informed that they may provide a brief on their position to the city before the hearing. 63 Also council members could visit the site if that would be helpful. 64 65 2a. Proposal on Otter Lake Road—Community Development Director Grochala 66 introduced Bruce Miller, MFC Properties, owner of the northeast quadrant property. Mr. 67 Miller noted that since the benefit appraisal for the Otter Lake Road improvements came 68 in under estimate and since he'd like to see the improvements go ahead so that 69 development in the area can proceed, he is offering to cover the difference as a loan. His 70 company is in jeopardy of losing a client interested in a business in the quadrant because 71 the process is not moving. 72 73 The mayor noted that he understands that the analysis came in low but also recognizes 74 that it is simply an estimate and the real value is what people will pay. He asked if 75 obtaining another appraisal would be appropriate. Mr. Grochala noted that there is the 76 possibility of scaling back the improvements to cover the gap of$80,000 but reducing the 77 scope could also reduce the benefit. He sees a stalemate position; the appraisal was done 78 by a well recommended organization so he doesn't see the benefit of a redo. He's heard 79 Mr. Miller's offer to finance the gap but that would leave assessment questions. Mr. 80 Grochala said he would intend to further explore the opportunity with the city attorney. 81 The other alternative he mentioned is to prepare a tax levy covering the gap, a step that 82 hasn't been used by the city in the past. 83 84 When Council Member Roeser asked if the developer(s) could go ahead and do the 85 improvements on their own, Mr. Grochala explained that there are property acquisitions 86 questions involved. Mr. Miller discussed the option of changing the location of the 87 proposed bus park and ride. Mr. Grochala suggested that the situation seems to present a 88 struggle no matter how you look at it. The council directed staff to continue discussions 89 with the involved parties and see what can be worked out. 90 2