Laserfiche WebLink
b. More detailed eminent domain process and issues discussion (in Executive <br />Session); and <br />c. Potential sources of money for the purchase of the properties, especially <br />funds other than the Parks Bonds <br />3. Bring back the ordinance only after the work session and with the following lan- <br />guage changes: <br />a. Delete Section 5 which calls for immediate effect; <br />b. Add language that describes the importance of preserving the Amazon <br />Headwaters for water quality purposes; and <br />c. Add language that describes the importance of preserving the land for plant <br />and wildlife habitat and wildlife connectivity. <br />4. The sequence of items brought back to the council shall be the appraisal and the <br />work session and the work session shall be informed by the appraisal, and then re- <br />visiting the revised ordinance. <br />5. After the City has contracted with the appraiser and other consultants and devel- <br />oped a timeline for completion of the appraisals and related documents, the City <br />Manager shall report back to the council as to when the work session can be sched- <br />uled. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman asked how long the appraisal was anticipated to take. City Manager Taylor estimated <br />that it would take three months. He asked Parks and Open Space Director, Johnny Medlin, to elaborate. <br /> <br />Mr. Medlin said they needed to evaluate what supporting information would have to be developed according <br />to the motion that would be provided to the appraiser. He was uncertain what that information would be. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman asked why Councilor Zelenka had used the language referring to “the highest and best <br />use of the property,” which she asserted would be based on the developers’ expectation of how they could <br />develop the properties to make a profit. Councilor Zelenka replied that this was not his intent. He asked <br />City Attorney Glenn Klein to speak to this. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein explained that an appraiser was required to evaluate a property according to its highest and best <br />use. He stressed that this did not mean what the developer meant by highest and best use. He said the <br />purpose of contracting with the consultants was for the City to obtain all of the information about the geo- <br />technical and hydrological aspects of the property in order to bolster the City’s case if the eminent domain <br />taking went to trial. He stressed that this information would create the definition of the highest and best use <br />and then the appraiser could use it to determine the value of the property. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman found the language to be confusing given that earlier in the motion it spoke to low, <br />medium, and high levels of development density. She suggested that the language be modified so that it said <br />“based on a range of development density.” Councilor Zelenka responded that this would mean low, <br />medium, and high development density. He said the second part of the sentence referred to the offer that the <br />City would need to make on the properties and the need for expert witnesses to inform the City what the best <br />offer would be. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman took issue with the looseness of the time frame. She averred that the City had negotiated <br />with the developers before and “things do not go anywhere because they do not have to go anywhere” by a <br />date certain. She said in order to support it she wanted to see a date, such as within a month after the <br />council break. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 9, 2007 Page 5 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br />