Laserfiche WebLink
provided to the geotechnical engineer. Mr. Klein said that to the extent the engineer thought that relevant, <br />they would consider it. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked what would happen if the geotechnical engineer hired by the City disagreed with the <br />engineer hired by those supporting condemnation of the property. Mr. Klein said the appraiser would rely <br />on information from the geotechnical engineer hired by the City. Part of the reason the drilling was <br />necessary was because there were gaps in what all the experts did. That was why the Planning Commission <br />concluded there was a lack of information to approve a development application. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if the appraisal process would be different if the council voted for condemnation now. <br />Mr. Klein said no. The first step after that decision was to secure an appraisal to back up any offer the City <br />made for the properties. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she had requested a motion that stated the council would act no later than December 10, but <br />Ms. Jones had assured her the motion was not necessary and the council would be able to act by that date. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked how many Oregon municipalities had used condemnation since the passage of Ballot <br />Measure 39. Mr. Klein did not know, but he believed that governments had continued to use condemnation. <br />He said he could provide that information only after further research. Mr. Clark said his understanding of <br />the measure was that it made it more difficult for cities to succeed with condemnation. Mr. Klein agreed. <br />He said that whatever the City’s first offer was, if at a trial a jury decided that the property was worth one <br />penny more than the City’s offer, the City must pay all attorney fees for the property owners. In this case, <br />he anticipated those costs could be considerable. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark suggested that it was to the City’s benefit to negotiate a deal with the property owner. Mr. Klein <br />agreed. He said the City had acquired hundreds of acres of property in the past but had only resorted to <br />condemnation a very few times. It was very rare that the City was not able to work out something with the <br />property owner. <br /> <br />Mr. Corey said that on occasion, the City would seek the power for the purpose of negotiations. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark noted his request to staff for a motion containing text that held the money in the budget for the <br />Santa Clara community park harmless and asked when he should make that proposal. He wanted to be clear <br />that the moneys intended for the park were used for that purpose. Ms. Jones believed Mr. Clark could make <br />that motion at any time. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein said that it would be very unusual to add such text to an ordinance authorizing condemnation <br />because of the different nature of the actions involved. The council could not add the text to the ordinance <br />regarding condemnation because it had already been the subject of a public hearing. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark requested that staff provide him with direction on the best procedure for directing those funds. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark agreed that the City should protect places that needed protection, and he thought the area in <br />question was beautiful and many people favored protecting it. He asked how the City could lack standards <br />that protected such a property if so many people favored its protection, and asked if the City created such <br />standards, what other types of property they would apply to. Mr. Corey said it was difficult to speculate on <br />what the protection of this property would mean on a citywide basis. He said he would consider the first <br />part of the question. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />