Laserfiche WebLink
<br />would like the size of the easement reduced to 15 feet on the south side of the ditch and 30 feet <br />on the north. The last offer by the City was that with the reduction to 15 feet of easement on the <br />south side of the ditch the easement should also include the triangle that was not included in the <br />original easement agreement. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich advised the McKusicks rejected the $7,500 and requested $15,000; they <br />are now down to $10,000. Direction is requested from Council regarding the easement purchase. <br />Council should consider that the other property owners have been offered and settled on the <br />amount of $1,800. The $7,500 offered to the McKusicks was due to the tree damage. In getting <br />the easement in the correct location the McKusicks incurred additional attorney fees and would <br />like an additional $2,500. The easy thing would be to agree to the $2,500, but Council should <br />also consider the other 54 parcel owners who took a far less amount. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen inquired what would be asserted by the McKusicks as the cause of <br />action. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied the claim would be that the City trespassed. The City's claim is <br />that ditch law gives them the right to be there, but the City has determined to proceed with an <br />easement purchase so ditch law is not an issue to be struggled with in the future. It would likely <br />make sense to agree with the $2,500 dollar wise on this specific parcel, but the entire City needs <br />to be considered in this decision. <br /> <br />Councilmember Jeffrey pointed out the final offer includes less easement than the original <br />agreement and he struggles with the additional $2,500. The original agreement included $3,000 <br />for the trees that were bulldozed, but this area is now included in the easement area. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen stated the argument regarding attorney fees does not mean anything <br />because ditch law does not allow for payment of lawyer fees. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich indicated the McKusicks have also made a claim against the contractor's <br />insurance company for tree damage. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look stated his understanding is that the McKusicks have a disagreement on the <br />legal description of the property included in the contract. They are in agreement of the $3,000 <br />for the tree loss, but because it has been taking so long to settle this their attorney's fees have <br />been going up and they want to be compensated. He found it to be a clear cut line between what <br />the City has agreed to as far as damages with the $7,500 and the fact that they have a problem <br />with the legal description. He does not feel it is now the City's responsibility to absorb the <br />McKusick's legal fees because they have a problem with the legal description, and this could set <br />a precedent. <br /> <br />Councilmember Olson stated the $7,500 is already very generous and the City should not go any <br />higher due to the precedent that would be set. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session I April 3, 2007 <br />Page 12 or 14 <br />