By Patrick Tepoorten

The Rush City council heard from anxious property owners Monday night, concerned about their ability to access their buildings from the rear.

ìTwo weeks ago we were told that the bakery wants to build right up to the property line,î said Priscilla Segelstrom, who has owned an adjacent building for 28 years.

ìWe wonít be able to park there anymore, and I was told I had to park out on the street.î

Rush City Bakery owner Daryl Seim does indeed plan to expand the bakery off of the rear of the building.

On Tuesday morning he explained that the addition would add 24 feet to the existing structure and would eliminate the ability to park there. The new space, which Seim plans to use for packaging and storage, was set to begin construction in about a week.

That news had Seimís neighbors reeling on Monday night.

Tammy Masters of Northwoods Bank informed the council that the property in question has been used as an alleyway and parking lot for buildings along Fourth Street for more than 20 years by some.

She also noted that company policy dictates a rear entrance for security reasons and fire response.

The concerned property owners were originally told by the city that unless the area in question was a city-owned alleyway, there wasnít much to be done.

Continued from front

ìIf it is not an alley or a street, there is nothing the city can do,î said City Attorney Joe Anderson. He did wonder though, if there existed a private easement since the property had been used as a parking lot for so long.

It was the belief of property owner Ron Sellers that a private easement does exist. Anderson responded by warning that, though an existing easement might be helpful to property owners in any possible court fight, the city has no enforcement authority over private easements.

Another question raised was whether or not Seim himself would be forced to trespass onto others property to access his own for construction.

That unanswered question, as well as the possibility of existing easements, zoning questions, and concerns over accessibility by the fire department and the existence of electrical, water, and sewer lines in the immediate vicinity concerned the council enough that they proposed enacting a moratorium.

ìWe need to study all of the issues in that area,î said Anderson, who suggested that the city immediately place a 90-day moratorium on downtown construction.

Councilman David Bengtson thought 90 days was too long. ìWe have to be fair to the bakery as well,î he said, stating that 90 days from now would likely be too late to complete a project before winter set in. Bengtson proposed a 30-day moratorium.

The council thought 30 days too short a time to gather all the data needed to figure a next move, if indeed there is a course of action the city can take. Instead, they countered with a 60-day compromise, instructing Bengtson that if the full 60 days was not required to answer the many questions, the moratorium could be shortened at any time.

The proposed 60-day moratorium carried with a unanimous vote.

When informed of the moratorium on Tuesday morning, Seim responded by saying only, ìIt doesnít make me happy.î He did not wish to comment on the moratorium or neighboring property owners concerns any further than that.

In other city news:

ï The city council entered into an engineering agreement with SEH for design and oversight of the community center parking lot. The bid is for a figure not to exceed $11,200, but it was the cityís hope that the total does not rise to that amount.

ï A builderís agreement between the city and Gene Pierce was passed. Pierce plans to build an hangar at the Rush City airport, to be located at the north end of the entrance road parking lot.

ï The council acknowledged a grievance filed against the city through the Teamsters union. Public works employee Dan Volk is seeking a step increase in pay reflecting his earning a wastewater plant operators license.

The city contends that Volk earned his operators license before the city entered into their contract with the Teamsters and that the agreement between the two entities says nothing about step increases for education completed before the contract was signed. Councilman Mick Louzek stated, ìIf it was that important to them they should have put it in the agreement.î

If both parties agree to mediation, that will be the next step in the grievance process. If not, it will go to arbitration.