11/13/2012 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • COUNCIL MINUTES October 22, 2012 DRAFT 179 Julie Jeffrey Schwartz, member of the HOA, concurred that this is a difficult decision for the council. 180 She noted that she is a professional appraiser and has expertise in the particular area of valuation. 181 She argues that the staff recommendation is actually too little from her perspective. She pointed out 182 that there are unknowns about how the cartway will impact the property. She respectfully requests 183 that the council not go any lower than the staff recommendation. She also asked that the council 184 include a time frame in their action relative to when the petitioner will have to pay; she'd recommend 185 payment within 40 days so that the HOA can still act within the period for appeals. Attorney Langel 186 confirmed the appeal period by reading the statute. 187 188 Mayor Reinert summarized that the council appears to have concurrence on the location, the amount 189 for bridge maintenance, and the road maintenance. What remains is the question of damages. He 190 stated that he supports the following charges: bridge, one sixth of maintenance costs; road, two 191 percent; compensation of $39,000; and a two year time frame for the petitioner to make payment. 192 193 Attorney Langel answered questions about the need to put an end date on the action authorizing the 194 cartway. He confirmed that once the amount required of the petitioner is determined, that must be 195 paid before construction of a cartway or use can proceed. In this case the road is already there and the 196 access /driveway is all that's required. Administrator Karlson asked about a scenario where the 197 payment is made but an appeal is filed by the HOA, could the city still be involved in litigation and 198 Attorney Langel suggested that could happen. Attorney Langel also clarified that the roadway of the 199 bridge wouldn't be considered as a roadway but part of the bridge. He also clarified that the survey 200 for the cartway will have to be updated to reflect any changes. 201 202 Council Member Roeser concurred that there should be an end date for payment to be received and he 203 is comfortable with eighteen months to two years as part of the action. Council Member Stoesz 204 concurred that there should be a time condition; he'd also like to understand how future costs will be 205 passed on to the petitioner since he isn't a member of the HOA and the city attorney responded that he 206 envisions there will be an agreement between the petitioner and the HOA. Council Member Rafferty 207 received an explanation of what construction would actually occur (just a driveway). 208 209 Petitioner Adam Johnson thanked the council for their work on this matter, clarified that to his 210 knowledge the cartway statute doesn't allow the council to instill a time limit and also announced that 211 since the cost being considered for the cartway would be more than 20 percent of what he paid for his 212 home, he doesn't believe he will be able to fund $50,000 plus even over a two year period. 213 214 Mayor Reinert remarked that he believes this council has spent a lot of time on this matter because 215 they want to get it right. 216 217 Council Member Rafferty moved to approve Resolution No. 12 -59 as amended to reflect the most 218 recent figures presented by staff (one sixth of bridge maintenance costs, one sixth of 9.27 percent of 219 road maintenance costs and $51,653.75 for damages) with findings to reflect those figures and with 220 damages subject to inflation and the cartway agreement null and void if not executed within two 221 years. Council Member Stoesz seconded the motion. 222