Agenda - Council - 04/24/2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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