Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Councilmember Riley commented he understood the resident’s sentiment but stated that the City <br />needs this property for access and he felt the City should have owned it from the beginning. He <br />feels the best course of action is buy the rest of the land. He stressed that the City has an out with <br />putting in their own road but he supports the City buying the land because they want it instead of <br />feeling forced. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff asked the City Attorney if eminent domain could be considered in <br />this case. <br /> <br />City Attorney Knaak replied it depended on what the City is trying to get. If the City is trying to <br />get the whole parcel, they would have to show a public purpose. He felt it could be justified as <br />enhancing the value and breath of the park and the City is doing it for park purposes. That being <br />said, it could be an option and if deemed necessary, the City can take it. <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich requested consensus direction that Staff can proceed with negotiations <br />of the sale of the property with the owner, the parcel outlined as well as the additional piece with <br />shoreline on the wetland area, to ensure there is a broad area of land that would serve the park. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove felt the position of buying the land is the best course to achieve a <br />resolution. She asked if the City could use park funds to show the land will be used for park <br />purposes and suggested the Council get creative and be conservative with money during <br />negotiations. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff commented that Elmcrest Park is currently one of the most renovated <br />parks and it is a wonderful park. He supports enhancing the entryway into the park at the end of <br />the cul-da-sac. If it means the City has to take some land to do it, he felt they should. He also <br />supported increasing the monument sign as an extension. <br /> <br />Councilmember Heineman agreed and indicated he didn’t want to contradict the things he has said <br />about property owner rights. He would be in favor of paying fair market value for the land. <br /> <br />Councilmember Howell asked if there was interest in adding a condition on the sale for a good <br />faith clean up effort of the easement by the property owner. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff stated he felt they should be going through the code enforcement <br />process regardless of the sale negotiations. <br /> <br />Councilmember Heineman asked about the location of the 60-foot buffer. <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich replied there is an easement on either side of the road which could be <br />enforced. <br /> <br />Consensus of the Council was to direct the City Attorney and Code Enforcement Officers to <br />maintain the right-of-way so it is unimpeded and to pursue to negotiations for the purchase of the <br />land. <br /> <br />City Council / November 9, 2021 <br />Page 22 of 26 <br /> <br />