2014-04-02 P & R Set Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I could only find two mentions of the lot in the Council minutes. On August 8, 1979, it mentions the lot in conjunction with ditch work being done on Mill Road: "...cost would be determined if fill dirt could be used off of Lot 4, Block 2, Peterson's Old Homestead Addition. Mayor was to check with realtor concerning Lot 4." At the same time, a paving project for this section of Mill Road was completed in 1979. On August 22, 1979, the meeting minutes state: "Charlotte Peterson appeared before the Council concerning the conveyance of Lot 4, Block 2, Peterson's Old Homestead Addition to the City." "Letter stating same is attached to and made a part of these minutes." A motion was then made to accept lot. Two letters were attached to the minutes, but neither seem to have a bearing on this property. They refer to another property transaction involving Petersons and a party named Wegleitners. There was also a request from Petersons for a variance on other nearby property that they owned. It is possible that the conveyance had something to do with those transactions, but the minutes do not say. Conclusion. The records are not completely clear on why or how the city came into ownership. It seems certain that it had nothing to do with the platting or development of the subdivision, as a park fee was collected with building permits during that time frame on this and other subdivisions and approval of the plats mention the park fee. Was the lot gifted to the city, or was it in exchange for some consideration relating to the street improvement, the ditch project, the Wegleitner transaction or variances? We just cannot be certain, the records are not clear. If the Petersons did gift it to the city, there should have been mention of restrictions on its use mentioned in the minutes. Where does that leave us? Over the years the property was shown on various maps as public and later as "future park." So it is easy to see why Park and Rec Committee would conclude that it should have any proceeds from the sale. Even though a past Council may have listed the property on maps for a future anticipated use, there is no binding commitment if there are no deed or plat restrictions requiring the property to be used in that manner. In my opinion, the decision to sell the property and what to do with the proceeds is up to the Council of today. Dallas Larson, Administrator