Laserfiche WebLink
City wants to spend in terms of resources on this issue. He reviewed the options the City would <br /> have in this instance. He also explained the additional steps that would be needed because the <br /> property was purchased with RALF funds. He asked for input from the Council. <br /> Councimember Riley asked if RALF permission would be needed for an encroachment <br /> agreement. <br /> City Attorney Langel commented that RALF could be notified but did not believe permission <br /> would be needed as the encroachment has existed since the 1970s. <br /> Councimember Riley stated that he would prefer to offer sale of the land at the costs the City <br /> would incur for the RALF process, or let the property owner take it to court and put the burden on <br /> them. <br /> Councimember Musgrove asked if the section the trailers are on could be obtained by the property <br /> owner without going to court. <br /> City Attorney Langel commented that the property owner would have to go to court to establish <br /> adverse possession. He commented that only those two slivers could be obtained in that manner. <br /> Councimember Musgrove commented that she is not happy to hear about this issue. <br /> City Attorney Langel identified a blue strip on the drawing, noting there is a fence on the north <br /> edge and the property owner could argue that they adversely own that fence line. He noted that <br /> only runs to lot 113. <br /> Mayor Kuzma stated that he likes the suggestion from Councimember Riley that the property <br /> owner could purchase the land at the cost of the expenses the City would incur, or could choose to <br /> go to court. <br /> Councimember Musgrove commented that the City purchased the land with RALF dollars and <br /> asked if the purchase of that property would reimburse RALF funds. <br /> Economic Development Manager Sullivan confirmed that any exchanged funds in that manner <br /> would reimburse RALF funds. He stated that he did not know if full process would need to be <br /> followed for the small strip because of the adverse possession issue. He stated that if the solution <br /> is that they want to solve for the encroachment and retain the remainder of the land, it would be a <br /> remnant parcel that would not have use to anyone other than the park. He stated that if there is <br /> public property behind the park in that location it could create a nuisance. He stated that perhaps <br /> it would make sense to make a large piece for sale to the park rather than creating City property <br /> behind the park. <br /> Councimember Woestehoff stated that he likes that idea. He stated that he would prefer to get rid <br /> of the wedge of property. <br /> City Council Nark Session 1 July 20, 2021 <br /> Page 2 of 5 <br />