Laserfiche WebLink
condemnation process, which this is. He suggested they be careful in giving up City land and not <br /> charging for it because of the precedence that would be set. He stated they are giving up value of <br /> the land which could be made into a driveway and paved if he wanted. The size is set by the <br /> statute, could be negotiated for more, but the responsibility is to let Mr. Kurak go through. He <br /> stated the reason it is being categorized as a fee is because the City is entitled to reimbursement. <br /> Usually that comes through the City condemning the land, determining the value, and getting paid <br /> for it. He stated the road wouldn't be public, but private for the purpose of Mr. Kurak accessing <br /> his land which becomes his property right, not public. He wanted to clarify that this isn't a fee for <br /> service, but a sale of the public's right to use the park land. He stated the value should be set by <br /> the engineering department, which is what he felt happened. He stated they should charge <br /> something because it will no longer be public land and they didn't want to set a precedence of <br /> giving park land for free. <br /> Mr. Kurak stated his easement has been compared to when the City takes an easement but when <br /> that happens, the City has the right to charge to use that easement. He gave the example of the <br /> when a cable company is charged to use the easement. He stated he isn't getting rights to fence <br /> the land or put signs on it. He can make it passable but he doesn't get exclusive right to it. He <br /> stated his two neighbors would have full access to it and would benefit the most. He didn't feel <br /> he would own the land on the park land and that the City could take it back at any point. He asked <br /> if they thought it was fair he should be charged. He stated he is being charged for things he didn't <br /> feel needed to be done such as surveying. He stated when the cartway was researched six months <br /> ago, the neighbors had access to the cartway, so it is not his. He gave examples of other times <br /> when he didn't feel the City had fair assessments of charges regarding property. <br /> Councilmember Howell asked about the size of the cartway. <br /> City Engineer Westby replied the size of the cartway was set per the statute. <br /> Councilmember Musgrove asked if the charge was determined by land value or if more <br /> information needed to be gathered before making a decision. <br /> Mayor Pro Tem Riley asked if there was such a thing as an easement appraisal. <br /> City Attorney Knaak replied sure. <br /> Mayor Pro Tem Riley commented they could do that. <br /> City Attorney Knaak added Mr. Kurak would have to pay for it though because the statute requires <br /> it, along with the surveying which is generally a good idea. <br /> Mr. Kurak replied he will pay for the surveying but it was not explained that this is a public cartway <br /> that the neighbors will get more utility out of it than he will. <br /> Mayor Pro Tem Riley stated the question was raised how to properly value the land and this would <br /> be it. <br /> City Council Work Session/April 26, 2022 <br /> Page 15 of 20 <br />